From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-11 21:01:09
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:22:06 +0100, Pavol Droba wrote
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason, why there is no default constructor provided
> for date classes in the date_time library?
>
>I seems to me, that it
> would be quite reasonable to provide it, while intializing the
> object to not_a_date_time. Current implementatio seems to be
> unreasonably restrictive.
The reason is because I don't really like default constructors. Perhaps
surprisingly this is only the second time I recall this coming up. Last time
it seems that I was pretty much convinced, but it never happened.
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1508692
Of course you can do it by changing one line of code:
Change boost/date_time/gregorian/greg_date.hpp::68
explicit date(special_values sv):
to
explicit date(special_values sv = not_a_date_time):
> The other issue is, if there is a plan to add unicode support to the
> library.
Can you be a bit more specific about what you want? The streaming code should
already support unicode if the underlying stream supports it.
Jeff