Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 11:06:44

On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Garland wrote:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>> n2320 proposal includes both relative and absolute timeouts for the
>>> condition variables.
>> It does? I only see
>> bool timed_wait(lock_type& lock, const utc_time& abs_time);
>> template <class Predicate>
>> bool timed_wait(lock_type& lock, const utc_time& abs_time,
>> Predicate
>> pred);
>> in
>> and N2406 follows suit:
> I stand correct -- I think it was 'supposed to' ;-) Sorry, I've
> seen various
> revisions of this paper some of which in my recollection had
> relative time
> interfaces. So let me say it another way: I believe a relative time
> interface
> should be offered here in addition to the absolute time. So I'm not
> sure what
> happened there -- Howard may have talked me out of it somehow or
> maybe it was
> accidentally dropped...

I haven't written a paper with a relative time on the predicate
version of cv::timed_wait, but I have no objection to such an overload
if it can be done (with concepts or enable_if or whatever) -- on the
predicate version only. This might be considered a semantic
difference so may require a separate paper.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at