21 Jul
2004
21 Jul
'04
11:47 a.m.
Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:20:45 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
I've given in to user demand -- the default constructor to not_a_date_time will be in the 1.32 -- gregorian::date same story.
Why was that the right choice? It seems like an opportunity for bugs.
What would you propose as an alternative?
Not having a default constructor for for dates at all. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com