From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 13:36:21
> > 4) Finally, I have a question about the time related interfaces.
>I brought this up on the list during design and got
> little opinion from anyone, but what little I did get suggested that
> consistency was more important here and thus the decision was made.
Sorry, I was too busy to track the avalanche of email on threads....
> We're early enough in the libraries life cycle to reconsider this
> decision if you want to start discussion here. However, if the pain
> of calculating a duration is your only concern I expect this to be
> resolved with a Boost time/duration concept.
> boost::timed_mutex::scoped_timed_lock lock(mx, boost::time
> Or some similar syntax.
Makes sense. I'll hold on the discussion until I get the date-time submission
in. However, you are correct a time_duration should work nicely and I believe
can simply be an added interface where it makes sense.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk