From: Peter Petrov (ppetrov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-18 14:54:59
Caleb Epstein wrote:
> Reading back through my comments (below), I don't think any of the
> Missing Features is a show-stopper. I'd say rationalizing interfaces
> for inclusion in Boost (e.g. perhaps using boost::xtime instead of
> asio::time, etc) and expanding the documentation and example code
> would be the top priority. All IMHO of course.
>>* The asio::time class should probably not be included, and
>> wherever it's used replaced by Boost.Date-Time.
> I think boost::xtime is the right choice there.
Am I the only one who dislikes boost::xtime? IMO it makes much more
sense to replace boost::xtime with a convenient class like asio::time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk