Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date

On May 4, 2013, at 8:46 AM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" wrote:

Le 04/05/13 14:28, Rob Stewart a écrit :

...

On May 3, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Anurag Kalia wrote:

...

At which point I wonder, why can't we be symmetrical and allow a function like:

make_date(2013, 2, 27);

You could have these, instead, for more consistency:

make_date(2013, 45); make_date(2013, w7, fri);

The later overload is Ok. The following is ambiguous

make_date(2013, 45);

and need

make_date(year(2013), 45);

Right

BTW, do you prefer w7 or w_7? Or a literal 7_w instead of a constant object?

I'd prefer at least "wk" if not "week" in the name. I don't think an underscore is nice there, and I don't like the literal ordering. Therefore, I'd like to see week7 or wk7. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)