I too tested boost date and found that it is extremely slow and eventually had to write code that performs much faster. Speed is one of major strength of C++, we should produce performance details of each module as well. For example boost::variant is 20 times slower than boost::any, which are similar in functionality, boost::any is very easy to use and is very fast but does not support serialization. -----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of __PPS__ Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:18 AM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: [Boost-users] date_time: Are there better conversion functions from ISO date format (calendar, ordinal, week dates) in basic and/or extended format? Should conversion from invalid iso date like "20050231" fail or produce same results as date(2005,02,31). (I know that it produces the same results, but is it right to convert invalid iso date representation to valid date?) Another thing I noted, some conversion functions accept const std::string &, but most of them accept plain std::string, isn't better to convert all of them to constant references??? If anybody interested, I wrote such function that accepts iso date string in any of the above mentioned 6 combinations and returns date. It runs 90-100 times faster than equivalent date_from_iso_string from boost. And yes, it does make sure that "20050229" fails _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users