Re: [boost] [chrono] v0.3.1 Support for wide characters

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] v0.3.1 Support for wide characters
From: Joel Falcou (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-21 02:43:36

vicente.botet wrote:

> A clock represents a bundle consisting of a native duration, a native time_point, and a function now() to get the current time_point. A clock must meet the requirements in the following Table. 
> 
> In this table C1 and C2 denote clock types. t1 and t2 are values returned from C1::now() where the call returning t1 happens before the call returning t2 and both of these calls happen before C1::time_point::max(). 
> 
> Table 1. Clock Requirements
> expression                     return type                                                             operational semantics 
> C1::rep     An arithmetic type or class emulating an arithmetic type.     The representation type of the native duration and time_point. 
> C1::period             ratio                                                                             The tick period of the clock in seconds. 
> C1::duration         chrono::duration<C1::rep, C1::period>                     The native duration type of the clock. 
> C1::time_point     chrono::time_point<C1> or chrono::time_point<C2, C1::duration>     The native time_point type of the clock. Different clocks are permitted to share a time_point definition if it is valid to compare their time_points by comparing their respective durations. C1 and C2 must refer to the same epoch. 
> C1::is_monotonic     const bool                                                                 true if t1 <= t2 is always true, else false. Note: A clock that can be adjusted backwards is not monotonic 
> C1::now()             C1::time_point                                                              Returns a time_point representing the current point in time. 
> 
> You could find a better formmating on the documentation.
> 
> As you can see, you need just to implement a static function returning this counter. The rest is pure formalism.
> 
> Hoping this answer your questions.

Oh it does, it's even better this way :)