From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-07 03:10:09
> Ok, sure. I can't really see anything wrong with your argument. That
> I still don't want to change this lightly. While this would make life
> easier for users, they are already used to the library. If I get rid of it
> and then want/need it back it won't be nice. So I'll put this on my
> to be considered list, ok?
Sure thing ;)
> > > which only provides microsecond duration resolution, but only requires
> > > single 64 bit integer to represent a time value. The bottom line is
> > > fractional seconds is a count of the number of fractional seconds at
> > > given resolution.
> > Maybe still, for simplicity you could have a
> > function.
> I agree this would be nice. Of course, I think this will need to fail
> compilation if the resolution doesn't support nanoseconds.
Not really. If lets say the fractional_seconds are milliseconds, then you
should return ticks() * 1000 (I think)
> > Also, now that I come to think of it :), the following functions would
> > in handy:
> > time_duration::total_hours() - the number of hours (ignoring mins, secs,
> > etc.)
> Don't see how this would be different from the current method.
It wouldn't ;) Just to be consistent ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk