Subject: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anurag Kalia (anurag.kalia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-28 12:40:30
I mistakenly sent this draft as a reply to personal email of Vicente. I am sorry! Here it is again, verbatim.
One related question though. I still haven't got the hang of a Mailing List. Is there a software takes the pain away from it. For example, I use outlook.com and '>' get appended in front of only the start of paragraph making it wholly unreadable.
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:14:09 +0200
> From: vicente.botet_at_[hidden]
> CC: anurag.kalia_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
> Le 27/04/13 16:58, Anurag Kalia a écrit :
> >> I understand that you want to design your own library, I did the same,
> >> but getting a coherent design would take you some time.
> >> I suggest you to start with the H. Hinnant proposal as a reference and
> >> state what you want to added, changed or removes. State clearly why do
> >> you want these changes, what would be improved/solved.
> >> Don't forget to inspect the threads/discussion related to the H.Hinnant
> >> proposal, and the paper N3344 Toward a Standard C++ 'Date' Class
> >> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3344.pdf
> > Hi Vicente,
> > Thanks a lot for the exhaustive reply! I will get back to you after going through all the things you pointed out and also the paper you forwarded. But I have one quick question for now, from where can I start my search for the threads and discussions around this date proposal?
> There were some interesting exchanges in
> I guess that if you request to the administrator s/he will be able to
> give you read access to the existing threads (there are not too much).
I have finally implemented some representative functions in date class and calendar to get a better idea of the proposal. I have dropped the JDN storage for another implementation that I thought of in the middle of the night. I think it is a hybrid approach between serial and field-based implementations. Off the top of my head, without any alternative implementations at hand and benchmarks too, I can't think of something inherently wrong in it. I would really like to hear its gotchas, if any.
I have overhauled my proposal on the basis of it. It doesn't contain other headings like about me etc for today. I have tried to incorporate all the previous points you noted before and have also tried to keep naming consistent. I did use uppercase constants in there but they are meant to be private. Is that okay?
I knew little about the benchmarks before you sent me that paper. From what I got, they just iterate over a significant period of time and note the start and ending time. Is it more than that? And should I make them before or after I have multiple implementations in hand. I could get hold of your and Howard Hinnant's implementations for them, but then the APIs would have to line up, wouldn't they?
Hope you find my proposal better this time around.
With an open ear,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk