>
> > For instance, if I want to iterate 1 and a half days, I think it's more
> > expressive to say:
> >
> > time_iterator it( start, days(1) + hours( 12)) instead of:
> >
> > time_iterator it( start, hours( 36))
>
> It's pretty easy to add this yourself if you want:
>
> class days : public boost::posix_time::time_duration {
> days(int day_count) :
> boost::posix_time::time_duration(day_count*24, 0, 0)
> {}
> };
>
> I didn't compile it, but this should work...
>
Yes, indeed. Anyway, after looking at the overall picture, I don't think
it's such a good idea after all.
This is because of time_duration, since users might then expect .days()
to be there, which could even break some existing code.
> > Russell Hind wrote:
> > Why not days(1.5) then? That would be even easier, wouldn't it?
>
> Sure, but then we have to deal with rounding issues. To me the
> compactness of this is not worth the trouble it creates.
Yes, indeed. But using fixed-point decimals ;-)
Eventually you could do something like:
hours( one_day() );
or something similar.
I'll be back with more requests ;-)
Best,
John
>
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
