Subject: Re: [boost] [stopwatches] About reducing the scope of the library
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-11 13:26:45
Le 11/09/11 11:17, John Maddock a écrit :
>>> My first proposal of Boost.Chrono included Stopwatches, but some on
>>> this list sugested that i would be better to split the library :(
>> That design still has merit, but -
>>> If no body is agains I will move Boost.Stopwatches to the namespace
>>> boost::chrono, remove the reporting facilities, and find a date for
>>> a review.
>> My point was that since you own Chrono you can add whatever you want
>> to it. So you could get something distributed now and see about a
>> review later.
>> But perhaps I'm the only one thinking the need for a Boost.Timer
>> replacement is urgent.
> Nod. Sounds like an important addition to me.
> IMO a small addition of a stopwatch could be done without a formal
> review - maybe just post the design and get feedback?
I would prefer a review.
> But something like:
> template <class Clock>
> struct stopwatch
> void reset();
> double elapsed();
> would seem hard to go wrong with? OK arguably the result of elapsed()
> should be a duration, but that makes it harder to use....
Why do you think it is harder to use? Could you give an example when
returning double will be clearer? Which will be the units of this double?
> BTW I spotted a typo in your docs:
> "The standard defines tree system-wide clocks"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk