> Hmmm while I can see your point, I still think a default constructor should > be provided. And as I, along with all of the users in the messages you cited > seemed to have expected that default constructed dates would be set to > 'not_a_date_time', I'd suggest that this would be the most sensible default > value. I don't see any point in *not* providing a default value.
Keeping the interface to a minimum, preventing accidental/surprising values, avoiding the controversy of discussing what an appropriate value for the default constructor is. Well, 2 out of 3 anyway :-) But seriously I'm willing to add it, but I don't think I've heard a compelling use case yet... Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
