Re: [boost] [chrono] Interoperability with ICL and common concepts

Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Interoperability with ICL and common concepts
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-06 08:36:57

Hi Vicente, Howard and Chronoists,

2011/3/16 Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]>:
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Vicente Botet wrote:
>
>> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>>

Vicente, thank you for implementing the additions on boost::chrono
discussed in this thread

>>>> (1) A default constructor on chrono::duration that is initialized with zero.
>>>> (2) An increment/decrement on the least steppable unit
>>>> (3) A difference_type declaration

>> Howard, do you think that there is a chance this semantics could be accepted
>> for TR2?
>
> I think there's a chance.  I'm not sure enough to be able to say
> whether that chance is high or low.  The chances would probably
> improve if boost's use of it did show benefit and did not show any problems.

According to Howard's remarks, I have instantiated a test suite of 16
non trivial test programs using various chrono time points and
durations on ICL intervals and interval containers.

http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/icl.html

Based on those changes, ICL users are now able to use
chrono::time_points and durations in ICL intervals and interval
containers without the need of any special adaptercode (e.g. a
boost/ICL/chrono.hpp).

Everything looks perfect now :)

Cheers,
Joachim

P.S.: Sidenote. Although points (1) trough (3) are a good foundation
for this chrono icl interoperability, I had to add some introspection
code in addition. I'm not perfectly satisfied with that. I feel there
is a concept missing here, that should be the basis of
interoperability for types like chrono::time_point/durations,
date_time::date/time/durations, third_party::date/time/durations and
other types resembling the same concept of an equidistant scalar type.

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de