Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-16 03:54:34
> Message du 16/04/11 09:30
> De : "Vicente BOTET"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie Ã :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
> > Message du 16/04/11 08:04
> > De : "Vicente BOTET"
> > A : boost_at_[hidden]
> > Copie Ã :
> > Objet : [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
> > As the review period has been extended, I will try to review at least the documentation.
> I guess this has already been discussed, so if it is the case, please could you give me the pointer?
> Instead of providing new datetime, calendars classes I would preferred that you propose the needed modification to Boost.DateTime library, so it can be used in an internationalization context.
> Why have you preferred to redo Boost.DateTime?
If the DateTime library is redone, shouldn't it be released as a separated one, DateTime2?
> Do your classes preserve the same interface than Boost.DateTime?
If not, does the documentation show the differences in a specific section?
If we follow the Chrono design, shouldn't the calendar be a template parameter of the dattime class?
What about rewriting the following
date_time some_point = period::year * 1995 + period::january + period::day*1;
date_time some_point = year(1995) + january + day(1);
Why your datatime class output by default as a number? Why there is no a default format?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk