Re: [Boost-users] Re: date-time

Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:

At Tuesday 2004-07-20 14:20, you wrote:

...

"Jeff Garland" 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.

seems that way to me also. that C polluted the programming world with the default uninitialized variables (they really shoulda paid more attention to BCPL, at least you had to say = ? if you meant to leave it alone), and C++ followed (so, purportedly, us 'old farts' would use the language) is NO reason to follow down a bad path.

Accessing the value of an unitialized variable is undefined behavior. Accessing the value of a default-constructed user-defined type is perfectly defined. Leaving out the default constructor offers little to no benefit to users.