Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anurag Kalia (anurag.kalia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-05 20:12:37
> Is this being considered for field types, serial types, or both?
> The reason I ask is that all serial values are valid dates, at least those
> in range, and we can make the range as big as we want. It is only the
> field types that are problematic when day, month, or week is out of range.
The problem with this function is that it can give us a false sense of
security. If we ask it to make an unchecked date "31-feb-2013", it would
gladly do it for us. With field representation, we can catch it. But with
serial representation, it would make a valid but wrong date! I don't think a
valid date that the user didn't ask for is really a valid date, is it?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-tp4646142p4646750.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk