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 12:12:14

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

> 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);

IMHO, some static member functions would be simple and elegant (to me)

    date::ymd, date::mdy, date::dmy

What Howard Hinnant had proposed may be a bonus to have

    date d = year(2013) / month(5) / day(3);

But to be frankly with you, I'd like to save some typing.

Best,