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.
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk