Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: TONGARI (tongari95_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 10:04:21

2013/5/3 Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>

> Le 03/05/13 12:01, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>  Oh I forget the drawbacks. As any other suffix it would need to add a
> using statement
>
>  using boost::chrono::dates::**literals;
>
>  date dt(2013y, may, 3d);
>
> Are any standardized suffixes for day,week and year? Note that these are
> not the same as days, years, weeks.
>

Hmm, a user literal must start with '_', isn't it?

My personal favor is that just one ctor in YMD order, so I won't need the
literals, it's a programming style matter after all...