Re: [boost] [date_time] i/o formatting

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-27 20:37:01

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:41:40 -0500, Caleb Epstein wrote
> On 2/26/06, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > //struct to represent elements of a point in time
> > struct timepoint {
> >   year_type  year;        //32 bit unsigned integer -- range depends on
> > calendar
> >   week_type  month;       //short integer 1-12 -- zero flags invalid
> >   short      day_of_year; //short
> >   short      day_of_week;  //0-6  -- 0 == sunday
> >   short      week_number;  //1-53 - 0 indicates invalid
> >   short hours;             //0-24
> >   short minutes;           //0-59
> >   short seconds;           //0-60 -- 60 is leap second
> >   frac_seconds_type fractional_seconds_count;
> >   short frac_seconds_resolution;  //increments of 10 only
> > };
> 
> So would "pow(10, frac_seconds_resolution )-1" be the maximum 
> expected value of fractional_seconds_count 

Right.

> (excepting perhaps leap- microseconds or something)?  

That won't be supported -- fortunately it isn't needed :)

> I think this could bear a little 
> further explanation than just "increments of 10 only".  Given that 
> it is a short I assume its not the denominator itself, but the log10 
> of it.

Well there's a good possibility that the concept isn't thought thru all the
way since things aren't implemented this way currrently ;-) The original idea
is that a 0 would indicate no fractional seconds, 10 would indicate a
resolution of tenths of seonds, 100 hundreths of seconds, etc -- for which a
short doesn't work.  But I like your idea better -- perhaps
fact_seconds_digits is clearer.

BTW, (not so subtle request comming) I haven't received much detailed feedback
on the proposal so I'd love someone with a critical eye to read and send me
feedback ;-)

Jeff