Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] Time zone improvements
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-26 07:55:24
Luke Camden wrote:
> Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > It is certainly deficient. We have wrapped it here with a
> > mechanism that locates rules based upon the year, but we
> > merely smoothed over the multiple-changes-per-year problem
> > by picking the dominant values for a given year. It's a
> > hack, but good enough for our purposes.
> Whose purposes is it good enough for? Does this mean you think
> there is no reason to 'correct' the API?
Between "we have wrapped it here" and my signature block, I thought it was obvious I was referring to my employer. That does not mean the deficiency ought not to be corrected, just that what we've done has been good enough for our purposes. Whether that will always hold I can't say.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer using std::disclaimer;
Dev Tools & Components
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk