[boost] Re: timer classes

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-01 04:45:27

Dave Abrahams wrote:

> 2. why the implementation is stored as a reference. While the code looks
> correct, reference members are a dicey proposition in general, and hard to
> get right. 

Why ?

> 3. whether we ought to be including code like the using-directive in
> timer.cpp which is designed to work around non-conformant implementations.
> (I prefer to have users compile with -Dstd for this case).
> 
> Also, I think progress_display might be a bit too general a name. I expected
> a (non-textual) GUI element! Perhaps text_progress_display would be better.
> You could break out the display independent part into an abstract base
> class, so when someone writes the boost GUI we will be able to use reuse it.

Like:

http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/bonnard/agil/item.html#ProgressIndicator

Note that this base class is by definition a 
DialogItem so it's bound to GUI code. Still, 
it's an abstract interface. If you remove the 
PassiveDialogItem stuff, it becomes much more 
abstract.

-- 
Valentin Bonnard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications