Boost logo

Boost :

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:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

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