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

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-16 16:11:07

"Bob Bell" <belvis_at_[hidden]> wrote

> I'd rather approach it the other way around. Instead of saying,
> "Let's provide various constructors in case someone wants them",
> we should say "Let's provide a constructor if we know there is a
> demonstrated, reasonable need for it." Is there a reasonable need for
> mutliple constructors which allow a user to specify time values in
> multiple ways?
> 
> As for ambiguity, there's ambiguity to the compiler, which can
> probably be worked around, and then there's ambiguity to a human,
> which can be much more difficult to deal with. In another post, I
> wrote as an example:
> 
>   timeout  t(100);
> 
> Is this 100 seconds? 100 milliseconds? 100 microseconds? With a
> single constructor using a type like double with a very simple
> meaning (i.e., seconds), there is no reader ambiguity, and the
> interface becomes very simple. At the same time, implementing it
> (converting to the underlying platform representation) is trivial.
> If it were me, I'd think long and hard about whether any other
> constructors are really necessary.

Sounds like you need a UDT for time.

See  http://www.servocomm.freeserve.co.uk/Cpp/physical_quantity/index.html

time::ys to time::yr   ( 1 yoctosecond = 1e-24 s)

OTOH I believe the boost date_time lib also has various udts for time

regards
Andy Little