Re: [boost] Low-level precision timer proposal - Part II

From: Philippe Vaucher (philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-16 17:09:29

>
> I started working on the timers after noticing some flaws in the
> current boost::timer, particularly the fact that it doesn't take into
> account that std::clock() can fail. In the first draft of my code no
> boost::date_time facility was used, partly because I wanted to come up
> with an autonomous solution and partly because I'm a billy goat with
> the date-time library in general (I wanted my code to be interoperable
> with date-time, but not depending on it; just like you can often make
> a template mpl-compatible by just providing a nested "type" typedef).

What I don't understand is why you didn't talk earlier in this thread ? You
seem to have missed a lot of discussion where your input would have been
interesting.

* it separates the "elapsed timer" notion from the notion of "clock
> device" (the "source"); the advantage is that you can plug-in any
> source you want.The only requirement on the source class is that it
> provides:
>
>   - a time_duration_type typedef
>   - void start();
>   - time_duration_type elapsed()

It's basically the same design than Jeff proposed (about it being templated
on the clock) except it's not tied to the boost::date_time interface which
makes it suitable for timers like QueryPerformanceCounter, that's why I
think I'll refactor it a bit to follow your design so we can have one
generic template class instead of template specializations.

That should cover the basics and make the code comments more
> understandable. In short, we are still at the drawing board, but once
> the design is in place, it really takes a little time to write down
> the code.
>

Right so you are actually proposing whole new round of discussions... ok, I
thought we had this behind :) I'm not used to the boost mailing list enough
I guess.

Philippe