Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 14:06:08

> A suggestion: figure out the maximum resolution any (actual, not
> theoretical) current system will need. Then assume Moore's law has quite a
> bit of life left. Adjust accordingly. If that means nano-seconds, fine,
> but it is obvious in 15-years that pico-seconds will be needed, make
> allowances now.

There should be no issue with the interface expanding to pico-seconds if that is
ever needed. I have my doubts that this will ever be needed, however.

> >Some things you DON'T need:
> >* ability to represent time points prior to 1970
> OK, I guess. Another question to ask yourself is how far do you want a
> filesystem (or less likely, a thread) to last? In other words, when does

Agree that they have radically different spanning ranges. It might be that the
two libraries should use different time systems b/c of this.

> roll-over occur going forward? I'd assume a couple of hundred years on the
> theory a file might really last 50 years, but you should then add a big
> fudge factor to stifle endless arguments about what the exact number should
> be.

The date representation in the file can span several thousand years into the
future. All my current implementations of time use this....


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