> > 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?
Ah, I see -- the intent is that the whole thing is 'not_a_date_time', but you are right the interface isn't totally clear on that. Looks like we really need a query for this on the time directly -- not to mention a constructor. Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
