Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 14:53:23

Le 04/05/13 20:38, Anders Dalvander a écrit :
>
> 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.
>
>
Do you think that I'm doing all that just because we can do it?
Humm, if yes, you are right ;-)

Best,
Vicente