Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 06:01:24


on the GSoC discussion about Boost.Chrono/Date proposal we were
discussing about date construction.
Some of us think that we need to use named types for day, month, year
and week so that the date constructors are not ambiguous.
Everyone agree with the constant object for month.

   date dt(year(2013), may, day(3));

But having to use day(3) or year(2013) seems to wordy.

I was wondering if we can not add some literals for day, year and week
so that we can just write

  date dt(2013y, may, 3d);

The advantage I see in addition to been less wordy, is that we will have
a compile error when the year, day or week is out of range.

What do you think?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at