Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Motivation for Boost version evaporating
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-12 17:01:25
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:49 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> while specific compilers can provide a chrono library it is not sure that the library works without some C++0x laguage feature. I have to work with compiler versions that do not supporting C++0x features. I would prefer to use on these compilers a C++98 adaptation of the standard chrono library than nothing.
> If you don't mind I'd like to take it and request a formal review as the library has a fixed interface and a quite stable implementation.
OK, but be careful. I think there were a few hacks in the
implementation relating to overload resolution or maybe selection of
template specializations. You probably what to check the code against
the actual standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk