Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-09-10 22:15:53

--- In boost_at_y..., "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_c...> wrote:
> > After attempting to implement a Date/Time class several times and
> > really getting a satisfactory version I would love to see a Boost
> > with an eye towards eventual submission to the standards
committee. If
> > anyone tries this I hope they will avoid the pitfalls inherit in
the old C
> > time functions. In particular it should be possible to represent
> > reasonable date and not be limited to a scale represented by the
storage of
> > seconds since 1/1/1970.
> >
> > Ken Shaw
> Take a look at this message:
> I believe I should have this ready for public discussion in the
next month or so
> :-) In GDTL the "clock source" is a component that could be
implemented with
> the C functions, a network time source, or other implementation. A
date or time
> object can be constructed from the clock source, but the date class
is not
> restricted to the date epoch used by the clock source (it can be
> However, the default implementation for the clock is the C time
functions, so
> this threading issue will need to be examined.

I'd really hope that we'd first implement a full xtime
implementation, since this is likely to be standardized on by C in
the near future. This type has addressed most (all?) of the
shortcomings of the current C/C++ date/time handling routines. Then
a boost date/time class and duration can be built based on top of
this specification, giving us a more OO interface to a (soon to be)
common C type.

Again, I love the idea of being able to code something like:

cond.wait(boost::calendar() + duration::from_seconds(1));

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at