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

On May 4, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:

On May 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Kalia wrote:

...

...

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?

I think Vicente put it best:

On May 4, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

H.H. approach is a little bit different * date constructors build unchecked dates * date factories build checked dates

I found this separation of behaviors to be something easily learned, remembered, and does not require the no_check_t syntax.

Both the constructors and make_date() can be overloaded with and without unchecked_t or no_check_t. That means the choice of syntax can be left to the user and context, rather than based upon checking or not. Nevertheless, I recognize there's value in the distinction you're making. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)