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

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 à : 
> 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 
> >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?
> 
> Few pointers:
> 
> - http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/boost_locale/html/appendix.html#why_plain_number
> - 
> http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/boost_locale/html/dates_times_timezones.html#dates_times_timezones_qna
> 
> 
> 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.

Best,
vicente