Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] quarters as new durations?
From: pete_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-12-22 09:03:39
On Tue 22/12/09 13:54 , "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Tue 22/12/09 13:27 , "Stewart, Robert" wrote:
> > > Jeff Garland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Month durations play some games to handle this problem (see
> > > > docs for details) which quarters could adopt. But if you
> > > > adopt the month rules then I don't thing you buy much more
> > > > than simply writing
> > > >
> > > > const months quarters = months(3);
> >
> > > That's an excellent point. I don't think the fuzzy math
> approach is
> > > appropriate for quarters because they have a precise definition:
> 1/4
> > > of a year. Months are less precise, though 365 / 4 is not a
> whole
> > > number, of course.
> >
> > Possibly opening a can of worms here, but a quarter in my
> > line of work is invariably three months. If your mileage
> > varies, then there could be a problem in providing a fully
> > meaningful quarter duration type if people think it means
> > different things.
> Jeff's idea of months(3) is all you need, right?
Yup, and in fact I use exactly that approach at the moment. A new duration type with quarter in the name that meant something other than three months could serve to confuse as much as it helps though, IMO.