Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-27 20:37:01


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:41:40 -0500, Caleb Epstein wrote
> On 2/26/06, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > //struct to represent elements of a point in time
> > struct timepoint {
> > year_type year; //32 bit unsigned integer -- range depends on
> > calendar
> > week_type month; //short integer 1-12 -- zero flags invalid
> > short day_of_year; //short
> > short day_of_week; //0-6 -- 0 == sunday
> > short week_number; //1-53 - 0 indicates invalid
> > short hours; //0-24
> > short minutes; //0-59
> > short seconds; //0-60 -- 60 is leap second
> > frac_seconds_type fractional_seconds_count;
> > short frac_seconds_resolution; //increments of 10 only
> > };
>
> So would "pow(10, frac_seconds_resolution )-1" be the maximum
> expected value of fractional_seconds_count

Right.

> (excepting perhaps leap- microseconds or something)?

That won't be supported -- fortunately it isn't needed :)

> I think this could bear a little
> further explanation than just "increments of 10 only". Given that
> it is a short I assume its not the denominator itself, but the log10
> of it.

Well there's a good possibility that the concept isn't thought thru all the
way since things aren't implemented this way currrently ;-) The original idea
is that a 0 would indicate no fractional seconds, 10 would indicate a
resolution of tenths of seonds, 100 hundreths of seconds, etc -- for which a
short doesn't work. But I like your idea better -- perhaps
fact_seconds_digits is clearer.

BTW, (not so subtle request comming) I haven't received much detailed feedback
on the proposal so I'd love someone with a critical eye to read and send me
feedback ;-)

Jeff


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk