From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-02 07:28:37
Jeff Garland wrote:
>> > Just as an aside,
>> >I don't have a timer in GDTL at this point, but it would probably be
>> >a logical home for this functionality...
>>In particular, it would be nice to have a full fledged timer to replace the
>>xtime placeholder Bill Kempf has in Boost.Threads.
> Bill mentioned this in an earlier thread, and I have a todo note to look at the
> stuff in the thread library, but I haven't had a chance yet.
>>But while it might be useful to give a bit of thought to how those timer
>>needs would play out in relation to the GDTL, I'd hate to see that exercise
>>cause much delay in submitting the GDTL to Boost for initial comments and
>>then formal review. The current date and time facilities inherited from C
>>seem awfully old-fashioned to me, and I'd really like Boost to take a
>>serious look at potential replacements.
> I agree totally -- should be around the end of this month -- stay tuned :-)
I'm curious to see/test it !
Your comment that can even go to nanoseconds scared me though. Timers
typically need a small memory footprint (to minimise destructive
testing) whereas a general time-class of course will try to span large
time intervals. I don't think both concepts are easy to merge.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk