In the Date-Time library documentation for 1.31, the link from Class day_clock takes me to the Construction From Clock section of the class Date. Is that correct ? I was expecting to be taken to documentation for class day_clock's constructors and member functions. Is this a way of saying that day_clock has only a default constructor and the member functions local_day() and universal_day() ?
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:46:27 -0400, Edward Diener wrote
In the Date-Time library documentation for 1.31, the link from Class day_clock takes me to the Construction From Clock section of the class Date. Is that correct ?
Yes.
I was expecting to be taken to documentation for class day_clock's constructors and member functions. Is this a way of saying that day_clock has only a default constructor and the member functions local_day() and universal_day() ?
Acutally, it has only static functions to return local and UTC day. Didn't seem worth it's own page in the documentation for 2 functions... Jeff
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message news:20040407181011.M49716@crystalclearsoftware.com...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:46:27 -0400, Edward Diener wrote
In the Date-Time library documentation for 1.31, the link from Class day_clock takes me to the Construction From Clock section of the class Date. Is that correct ?
Yes.
I was expecting to be taken to documentation for class day_clock's constructors and member functions. Is this a way of saying that day_clock has only a default constructor and the member functions local_day() and universal_day() ?
Acutally, it has only static functions to return local and UTC day. Didn't seem worth it's own page in the documentation for 2 functions...
Yes, of course. I should have said "static" and not member functions. I still think when you take such shortcuts, you need to explain it. While I have your attention, here is a doc bug in the 1.31 doc for date/time.If you look at the documentation for ptime, in the section regarding construction from Clock ( in which I assume that second_clock is like day_clock with no explicit doc for itself ), the syntax and example for the second table entry is out of sync as far as the name of the static class function. It should probably be "universal_time" but the example has "universal_day" instead.
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:42:54 -0400, Edward Diener wrote
Acutally, it has only static functions to return local and UTC day. Didn't seem worth it's own page in the documentation for 2 functions...
Yes, of course. I should have said "static" and not member functions. I still think when you take such shortcuts, you need to explain it.
Sure. I'll enhance the documentation to point this out.
While I have your attention, here is a doc bug in the 1.31 doc for date/time.If you look at the documentation for ptime, in the section regarding construction from Clock ( in which I assume that second_clock is like day_clock with no explicit doc for itself ), the syntax and example for the second table entry is out of sync as far as the name of the static class function. It should probably be "universal_time" but the example has "universal_day" instead.
Thx. Will fix shortly. Someone also just pointed out that the microsecond clock is not listed on the ptime page. Which means that it's almost to the point that the clock stuff needs it's own page ;-) Jeff
participants (2)
-
Edward Diener -
Jeff Garland