Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anurag Kalia (anurag.kalia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 12:01:17
> I think I see the disconnect. Simplifying as much as possible (hopefully
> not too much), you prefer:
> days_date(year::rep, month::rep, day::rep, no_check_t);
> whereas I prefer for the same functionality:
> days_date(year, month, day);
> or for the sake of removing part of the debate:
> days_date(year, month, day, no_check_t);
> Your design doesn't require that year, month and day objects be
> "validation free", but mine does.
Howard, I am curious why are we not trying to make the default date type
beginner-proof? Is it because we already have the "slash" form that
validates the date?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-tp4646142p4646629.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk