From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-18 17:30:11
Jeff Garland wrote:
>>> 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
> I agree, I'd like to see this happen rather quickly -- because of the
> differences you cite I have to rework the TR2 proposal and I'd like to
> understand all the details of how that will be achieved.
OK, let's work to make it all happen. See below for possibilities.
> At the same time I
> think we need to look at maintaining some backward compatibility with the
> Boost date-time types so those users don't necessarily need to rewrite code.
> As I said above we have some boost specific concerns that we may need to
> address in our implementation. I think I'll want to put the new stuff in a
> new namespace -- do we have anything for 0x yet? Maybe boost::cpp0x or
One thing that came out of the LWG's discussion of N2615 was a strong
(10 for, 0 against) preference for putting the clock/duration/time_point
stuff in a sub-namespace. While the LWG reserves the right to make
future sub-namespace decisions on a case-by-case basis, there was strong
support for sub-namespaces for specific problem domains, particularly
those with a lot of very common names inside. Perhaps that can guide
Hum... I think we should follow the Boost TR1 practice, which provides
the actual declarations and definitions in a boost:: sub-namespace, and
then provides a <boost/tr1/whatever> header that hoists the names into
namespace std::tr1 with usings.
So in this case, we would provide a <boost/cpp0x/chrono> header with
names in namespace std::chrono. The names would be hoisted into that
namespace via usings from a boost namespace such as your suggested
boost::cpp0x::date_time or boost::date_time::cpp0x or
boost::date_time::chrono or whatever.
How does that sound?
Perhaps all of us working on C++0x stuff could work on a common branch,
>> Jeff's on the beach this week (literally). :-)
> Quite true -- I can see the sand from where I type -- and feel the soreness
> from 3 hours in the surf with the kids yesterday ;-)
Ah! The good life!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk