From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-12 06:35:25
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:59:36 +0100, Val Samko wrote
> The main problem I see with this syntax is that
> d + months(MONTHS) + DAYS;
> is not equivalent to
> d + DAYS + months(MONTHS);
> and I sometimes this might lead to the error prone code. This is why
> I prefer to use add_month function.
True. And this fact has been one factor in keeping this function out of the
library before. Still, if it is well documented I'm starting to think the
risk might be worth it since 'month' becomes a first class object that can be
used in interfaces and as a data member in classes.
> I'm currently using my home grown date classes. I will switch to
> the Date-Time, once these changes will be available in the boost
You are aware that this won't be for a couple months (at least), right?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk