Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Interoperability with ICL and common concepts
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-16 11:48:27
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> (2) An increment/decrement on the least steppable unit
> (3) A difference_type declaration
> Very simple, very little effort, great benefit for instant
> interoperability, not only with ICL but with all generic libraries
> that depend on this minimal set of fundamental information.
could you create a ticket for (3). I don't think this is too disruptive.
For (2), I will rephrase your least steppable unit as follows. The semantics
associated to++,-- is to interpret the unit as the duration of the
will be equivalent to
tp += Atime_point::duration(1);
Howard, do you think that there is a chance this semantics could be accepted
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/chrono-Interoperability-with-ICL-and-common-concepts-tp3357088p3382141.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk