Re: [boost] [date_time] [#1861] Change for the default duration format

Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] [#1861] Change for the default duration format
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-01 16:09:15

On Monday 01 June 2009 19:55:04 Stewart, Robert wrote:

> > The initial problem was that the default handling of the %H
> > format specifier (passing it to strftime) played badly with
> > time durations that could be longer than 24 hours. The
> > resolution was to provide additional %O format specifier
> > that does not have 24 hour restriction.
>
> I suspect that's not common -- other than for the OP, perhaps.

You think so? I don't know how often it is needed to operate longer durations, 
but IMHO, objectively there is no such restriction for time durations and the 
library should not artificially impose one.

> Jeff's
> explanation in the associated list message implies that, too.

What message do you mean?

> > However the original poster proposes to change the default
> > format of time durations from %H:%M:%S%F to %O:%M:%S%F so
> > that formatted durations are always allowed to be longer
> > than 24 hours. I mostly agree with this change, however it
> > is clearly a breaking change that can affect error checking
> > in some cases.
>
> Changing the default will create surprises in some cases.  I'd prefer to
> see error checking -- an exception when the valid %H range is violated. 
> That would alert library users to the problem when violated and the
> exception message could even suggest the need for %O (as should the docs,
> of course).
>
> That would provide useful behavior for those violating the range
> unknowingly and it would avoid breaking compatibility and, reasonable
> expectations for users.

The change mostly affects formatting. There already is an assert, so users 
will know if %H is used improperly. The assert is present since 1.38.

The question is whether the change to %O as a default is justified enough and 
how it should be announced better.