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

I think I see the disconnect. Simplifying as much as possible (hopefully not too much), you prefer:

days_date(year::rep, month::rep, day::rep, no_check_t);

whereas I prefer for the same functionality:

days_date(year, month, day);

or for the sake of removing part of the debate:

days_date(year, month, day, no_check_t);

Your design doesn't require that year, month and day objects be "validation free", but mine does.

Howard, I am curious why are we not trying to make the default date type beginner-proof? Is it because we already have the "slash" form that validates the date? -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.