On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:53 PM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 06:43:39PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 17:38:09 Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > > > writeln(time.toISOExtendedString()); // bzzt, wrong, but this > > > used to work! > > > > Yes, and it was quickly changed to toISOExtString, because > > toISOExtendedString is painfully long. toISOExtString is bad enough, > > but you can't really make it any shorter without making the name > > uninformative. > > You *could* shorten String to Str, but that would be inconsistent with > everything else (e.g. toString), so that's a no-go. > > > > > Nope, apparently, I meant "dur". Ridiculous. > > > > A Duration needs to be constructed with a template, and > > duration!"hours"(13), duration!"seconds"(44), etc. is painfully long > > when used in expressions. So, it was shortened to dur. I don't know of > > any other abbreviation which would make sense. > [...] > > I'm on the fence about this one. It's true that duration!"seconds"(44) > is uncomfortably long, but 'dur' also tends towards the side of > meaningless, esp. if it occurs only once or twice in otherwise-unrelated > code. I'm inclined to leave it as 'duration' since I can't think of any > good abbreviations for it either. > > > T > > -- > A bend in the road is not the end of the road unless you fail to make > the turn. -- Brian White > I wasn't around for the creation of datetime but I'm curious why a boost datetime-like duration construction shortcut approach to durations wasn't used. That is, you can write weeks(1), months(6), years(10), hours(17), minutes(12), etc. (although there is now days(int) for some reason).
