[boost] Re: [network] An RFC posted to the sandbox

From: Bob Bell (belvis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-14 04:02:22

Don G <dongryphon <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> > * timeout constructors are inconsistent. One takes
> > seconds + microseconds and one takes milliseconds,
> > at least according to the names of the arguments.
> 
> Yeah, that was one of the adjustments I tried to make as I
> boost-ified the code. The Windows way is millisecs, but Unix is
> microsecs. To do microsecs, I think we would have to use uint64's.
> That would be fine by me, but I wasn't sure how widely supported it
> is. I know that for Solaris (SunPro), gcc, MSVC, CodeWarrior, uint64
> is good. Of course, a timespec doesn't use uint64. La de da... :)

Double is a pretty portable type ;-) How about using a double value that
represents seconds? Converting from double t to int milliseconds is just
static_cast<int>(t * 1000), etc.

Bob