Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?

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 à : 
> Objet : Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message du 16/04/11 08:04
> > De : "Vicente BOTET" 
> > A : boost_at_[hidden]
> > Copie à : 
> > 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;

as

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?

Best,
Vicente