> > > 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... > Well my use-case is that I use a couple of ptimes as members of a class which keeps track of the earliest and latest readings read in from a remote device. When I first create this class, no readings have yet been read, so I construct them with not_a_date_time. I realise a single use-case such as this probably won't change your mind, but at least I tried ;)
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
