Re: [boost] [date-time][threads] Integrating C++0x clocks, time points, and durations into Boost?

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-18 08:42:05

On Jun 18, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Paul A Bristow wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
>> Sent: 17 June 2008 12:41
>> To: Boost Developers Mailing List
>> Subject: [boost] [date-time][threads] Integrating C++0x
>> clocks, time points, and durations into Boost?
>>
>> A slightly updated version of
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2615.html  
>> was
>> accepted at the C++ committee meeting last week. It provides clocks,
>> time points, and time durations for the C++0x standard library, and
>> slightly modifies the threads interface already voted into
>> C++0x to use these features.
>
>> Although these clock and time features evolved from Boost
>> Date-Time, the
>> actual realization is quite different. So we've got a transition that
>> has to be managed. I'd personally like to see that transition occur
>> quickly, both because Boost.Threads depends on these features, and
>> because I can now bring forward an improved Boost.Timer based on  
>> these
>> features.
>
> Even a cursory glance at (the convincing) N2615 makes it clear to me  
> that standardizing something as fundamentally important as this
> without an implementation exposed to very many eyes and brains and  
> real-life 'use in anger' is asking for trouble.
>
> So I agree that a Top Priority is to get a Boost implementation into  
> use asap.
>
> (But I have no expertise or suggestions on how to achieve this).
>
> Sadly, the timing is wrong to get some GSoC manpower on this.

A public example implementation exists for this proposal (with only a  
few minor details wrong such as it is using the wrong nested  
namespace).  However I'm hesitant to point people at it.  It is a good  
test of the wording to have an independent implementation.  That will  
expose ambiguities in the normative wording that otherwise may be  
covered up.  I'd love to see a boost implementation as well.  Jeff's  
on the beach this week (literally). :-)

-Howard