Re: [Boost-users] Re: date-time

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 13:42:22

Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:00:00 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
>
>> The real question is: do the benefits (none from my POV) gained by
>> _not_ supplying a default constructor outweigh the disadvantages?
>
> How about clearer code:
>
>  //what does it do -- non-obvious
>  date d;
>  std::cout << d << std::endl;
>
>  //obvious...
>  date d(not_a_date_time);
>  std::cout << d << std::endl;
>
> Personally, that's enough for me...

That's why I said "from my POV". Obviously you can still write the //
obvious way. Having a default constructor simply does not _prevent_ the
"non-obvious" code from being written.

"From my POV", I see little value in these "prevention" features, because I
never obfuscate code just because it's allowed. I do know that other
viewpoints exist. It's a philosophical issue and the spirit of C++ is to
give programmers the benefit of the doubt (i.e. not penalize the "I know
what I'm doing" group).