Jeff, Sunday, April 11, 2004, 4:01:02 PM, you wrote: JG> Hmm, point taken. That said, if I add this to the library people will JG> (correctly, I think) expect the following: JG> date d1 += months(3); JG> date d2 = d1 - months(2); JG> date d3 -= months(2); JG> date d3 = d3 + months(-2); JG> to work correctly. The code we have sketched so far won't handle this JG> correctly. Going even further, I don't see why the following isn't allowed: JG> ptime t1(d1); //d1 at midnight JG> t1 = t1 + months(2); JG> And I think this same logic applies to 'years' and 'weeks' as well. This JG> would finally unify the arithmetic concepts in the library -- not to mention JG> make an awful lot of date calculation code very clean. The main problem I see with this syntax is that d + months(MONTHS) + DAYS; is not equivalent to d + DAYS + months(MONTHS); and I sometimes this might lead to the error prone code. This is why I prefer to use add_month function.
Anyway, I think, three namespace level functions would be sufficient.
JG> As you can see, I have a slightly grander plan, but it should be compatible JG> with your needs. Do you want these functions in CVS now or are you going to JG> patch your release for now? I'm currently using my home grown date classes. I will switch to the Date-Time, once these changes will be available in the boost release. Val