Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-16 12:16:40
> Message du 16/04/11 15:11
> De : "Artyom"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie Ã :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [locale] Review. Internationalization library?
> > 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
> > 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?
> Few pointers:
> - http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/boost_locale/html/appendix.html#why_plain_number
> Few points to differ:
> Boot.Locale date_time is:
> a) Provides different calendars (non-Gregorian) like Hebrew, Islamic
> that are frequently used using same interface.
> b) locale dependent (which calendar, what is first day of week)
> c) Time-Zone dependent (for example adding one hour is different from
> changing its posix time by +3600 because of Summer time)
> d) Represents both time and date in same object represented as a POSIX time
> Note: ptime is different as it is not really POSIX time it may be local
> time as well.
> Basically Boost.DateTime and Boost.Locale's date_time have very few
> in common.
The domain, isn't it?
> Boost.Locale's date_time is like a calculator of time in current locale.
> > Do your classes preserve the same interface than Boost.DateTime?
> No, it does not. It is very different.
So, you have needed to change the interface completly.
Have you take a look at Boost.Chrono? I'm sure that it will inspire to find a more open interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk