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:
>> 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?
> 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 ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk