> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Garland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > However, to implement format "General Date" (format letter "c"), I > > need to know if the given input contains a date, a time, or a > > datetime. Since the functions pretty much perform the same > > thing, I have a core that implements functionality for datetime and > > then I use this in the function that implements date/time > separately. > > > > However, to implement the no time I have to query whether the time > > is 0:0:0.000. This is obviously problematic, since this is a > > perfectly valid time. For the date, I don't even have a > "start date" to > > use. So I pass the core function a bool that tells it > whether to ignore > > the date, and pass in an arbitrary date when I want just the time. > > > > It would be nicer, though, if I could just pass "not_a_date" or > > "not_a_time". I could even expect the datetime function to throw > > an exception if the requested format is for "month" and the > > "not_a_date" was passed. > > Seems like there will be cases where you will want to print > the 'not_a_date' value instead of throwing an exception. > Without a bit more detail, however, it is unclear to me > how this bears on a default constructor. You can already > test a date to find out if it is not_a_date_time?
Well, I want to construct a datetime structure with "not a date" for the date, but a valid time. And similarly, for a date value, but not a valid time. I'm not sure what "not_a_date_time" means. Does it mean the entire datetime is invalid? Just the date? The time? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
