Re: [boost] [stopwatches] About reducing the scope of the library

Subject: Re: [boost] [stopwatches] About reducing the scope of the library
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-11 13:26:45

Le 11/09/11 11:17, John Maddock a écrit :
>>> My first proposal of Boost.Chrono included Stopwatches, but some on 
>>> this list sugested that i would be better to split the library :(
>>
>> That design still has merit, but -
>>
>>> If no body is agains I will move Boost.Stopwatches to the namespace 
>>> boost::chrono, remove the reporting facilities, and find a date for 
>>> a review.
>>
>> My point was that since you own Chrono you can add whatever you want 
>> to it.  So you could get something distributed now and see about a 
>> review later.
>>
>> But perhaps I'm the only one thinking the need for a Boost.Timer 
>> replacement is urgent.
>
> Nod.  Sounds like an important addition to me.
>
> IMO a small addition of a stopwatch could be done without a formal 
> review - maybe just post the design and get feedback?
>
I would prefer a review.
> But something like:
>
> template <class Clock>
> struct stopwatch
> {
>   void reset();
>   double elapsed();
> };
>
> would seem hard to go wrong with?  OK arguably the result of elapsed() 
> should be a duration, but that makes it harder to use....
>
Why do you think it is harder to use? Could you give an example when 
returning double will be clearer? Which will be the units of this double?

> BTW I spotted a typo in your docs:
>
> "The standard defines tree system-wide clocks"
>                                 ^^
>
Thanks,
Vicente