On Tue 22/12/09 13:54 , "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:

wrote:

...

On Tue 22/12/09 13:27 , "Stewart, Robert" wrote:

...

Jeff Garland wrote:

...

Month durations play some games to handle this problem (see docs for details) which quarters could adopt. But if you adopt the month rules then I don't thing you buy much more than simply writing

const months quarters = months(3);

...

That's an excellent point. I don't think the fuzzy math approach is appropriate for quarters because they have a precise definition: 1/4 of a year. Months are less precise, though 365 / 4 is not a whole number, of course.

Possibly opening a can of worms here, but a quarter in my line of work is invariably three months. If your mileage varies, then there could be a problem in providing a fully meaningful quarter duration type if people think it means different things. Jeff's idea of months(3) is all you need, right?

Yup, and in fact I use exactly that approach at the moment. A new duration type with quarter in the name that meant something other than three months could serve to confuse as much as it helps though, IMO.