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

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 10:56:54

Le 03/05/13 16:04, TONGARI a écrit :
> 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?

  date dt(2013_y, may, 3_d);

>
> 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...
>
>
You can the use

  date dt(2013, may, 3, no_check);

Vicente