RE: [boost] Re: Date-Time

From: Powell, Gary (powellg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-14 12:19:53

Rob Stewart wrote:
>From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:04:34 +0100, Val Samko wrote
>> >> 
>> >> Does that mean that add_month won't be implemented? What if we call
>> >> it inc_month, instead of add_month? inc_month (Increase Month)
>> >> in no way assumes that the day of the month will stay the same,
>> >> it will just increase the month.
>> >
>> > Yes, perhaps a different name would help eliminate any confusion that we are
>> > doing 'math' here.  
>> 
>> I think readability is more important.  Nobody but pedants have
>> problems with string + string.  Likewise I think:
>> 
>>          d + 2*months
>> 
>> or whatever is better than the functional-looking alternatives.

>If there was universal acceptance of what it means to add two
>months to a date, I might agree.  Given the imprecise notion of
>what it means to add two months, however, I disagree.
>"next_month" or "increment_month" versus "add_month" better
>distinguish the imprecision.

Here I totally agree with Rob, adding months is a non-intuitive operation and 
calling out the precision helps the readability of the program.

It makes perfect sense to do

   d + (30 * days)

but not with Months.

  Yours,
  -Gary-