Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anders Dalvander (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 14:29:13

On 2013-05-04 15:26, Rob Stewart wrote:
> On May 4, 2013, at 8:46 AM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Le 04/05/13 14:28, Rob Stewart a écrit :
>>> On May 3, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Anurag Kalia <anurag.kalia_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> At which point I wonder, why can't we be symmetrical and allow a function like:
>>>>
>>>> make_date(2013, 2, 27);
>>> You could have these, instead, for more consistency:
>>>
>>> make_date(2013, 45);
>>> make_date(2013, w7, fri);
>> The later overload is Ok. The following is ambiguous
>>
>> make_date(2013, 45);
>>
>> and need
>>
>> make_date(year(2013), 45);
> Right
>
>> BTW, do you prefer w7 or w_7? Or a literal 7_w instead of a constant object?
> I'd prefer at least "wk" if not "week" in the name. I don't think an underscore is nice there, and I don't like the literal ordering. Therefore, I'd like to see week7 or wk7.
>
Weeks? According to what way of counting weeks? Monday-weeks (Europe, 
ISO 8601), Saturday-weeks (Middle East), or Sunday-weeks (Canada, US, 
Mexico)?

If boost should adhere to ISO 8601, which I think it should, why not go 
all in and mandate ordering of YMD as well?

Regards,
Anders Dalvander