RE: [boost] Re: [date_time] time_duration

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-04 13:54:51

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Jeff Garland
| Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:52 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: RE: [boost] Re: [date_time] time_duration
|
| > And time_point shounds VERY MUCH better to me (than ptime or time).
|
| My only worry about time_point is then things like local_time or
| multiprecision_time (no these don't currently exist in the library) would
| probably need to be local_time_point and multiprecision_time_point.  In the
| context of other time types adding 'point' doesn't sound appealling.

So are these going to be local_ptime and multiprecision_ptime?

I don't think you should worry about length - with modern editors one can handle
them easily without RSI to fingers.  Write once, read many ...

| > PS Isn't time from C time in global namespace? Not a macro but still
| > a PITA!
|
| Very well could be...

I vaguely remember someone suggesting a way round this.

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]