Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono/date] year/day/week literals
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 06:06:43
Le 03/05/13 12:01, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> 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.
>
Oh I forget the drawbacks. As any other suffix it would need to add a
using statement
using boost::chrono::dates::literals;
date dt(2013y, may, 3d);
Are any standardized suffixes for day,week and year? Note that these are
not the same as days, years, weeks.
Best,
Vicente