From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-26 08:53:59
Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:11:19 -0700, Jeff Garland
>>> and also wanted to make it interoperable with
>>> Boost.Date_Time without actually coupling with it.
>> Well, this can certainly be done but is it really worth it?
> I don't know. I'm not very knowledgeable about the date_time library,
> which is one of the reasons why I postponed the issue.
Ok, well there's been 'a strategy' that we should do some minor interface
upgrades and add some higher resolution timers to the timer library. The
strategy was to incorporate into date-time using date-time types. It's been on
my todo list, for well, too long. Then others started working on this in
seemingly divergent directions...
> As for the trivial interface bringing discussion, due to reasons
> absolutely beyond me I've been away from this list for two years. You
> may have noticed that I'm reproposing things which were preliminarily
> submitted in 2004, for instance. Hoping next time I'll amuse you with
> a quip rather than supposedly technical discussion.
Sounds good ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk