Howard Hinnant-3 wrote
On May 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Kalia <
anurag.kalia@
> wrote:
I think I see the disconnect. Simplifying as much as possible (hopefully not too much), you prefer:
days_date(year::rep, month::rep, day::rep, no_check_t);
whereas I prefer for the same functionality:
days_date(year, month, day);
or for the sake of removing part of the debate:
days_date(year, month, day, no_check_t);
Your design doesn't require that year, month and day objects be "validation free", but mine does.
Howard, I am curious why are we not trying to make the default date type beginner-proof? Is it because we already have the "slash" form that validates the date?
I think Vicente put it best:
On May 4, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet@
> wrote:
H.H. approach is a little bit different * date constructors build unchecked dates * date factories build checked dates
I found this separation of behaviors to be something easily learned, remembered, and does not require the no_check_t syntax.
It makes sense when said like that! - Anurag. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.