Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: Anders Dalvander (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 14:38:10

On 2013-05-03 12:01, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> 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.
> What do you think?
> Vicente

Do people actually hard code dates as often to make this necessary?

We don't need to do something just because we can, we should do
something that is useful and have a real life use case.

Anders Dalvander

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