On 2013-05-03 12:01, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi,
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?
Vicente
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. Regards, Anders Dalvander