On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 Paul Bristow wrote
> Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some names are
> less than ideal. I found kday less than intuitive.
This name actually comes from Calendrical Calculations. But I'm not stuck on
it if you you have other suggestions.
> Docu
> > My first choice was 'time'. However, as I recall I ran into some
> > nasty macros that interfered with that name, sigh. time_point would be
> > another possibility, but it is longer. I'm certainly open to suggestions...
> Disable the macros where neccessary? You can do it temporarily an
AIL PROTECTED]
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Abrahams
| Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:50 PM
| To: boost
| Subject: [boost] date_time naming
|
|
|
| I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I think I'm
| go
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:50:09 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I think I'm
> gonna like it.
Let's hope so!
> I have some quibbles with the naming choices though
> (shocking! me of all people!) For example, why is the nested
> namespace calle
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [boost] date_time naming
>
> I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I
> think I'm gonna like it. I have some quibbles with the
> naming choices though (shocking! me of all people!) For
I'm just getting started with the date_time library, and I think I'm
gonna like it. I have some quibbles with the naming choices though
(shocking! me of all people!) For example, why is the nested
namespace called posix_time instead of, simply, posix? Once you're in
a date_time context it seems
