Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-10 02:52:29
2014/1/10 Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
> I understand why I was lost by the algorithm function description. The
> fact that you showed the algorithm interface make me though that this is
> an extension point pf the library. You must remove this a just say that
> there are two scheduler.
> Hrr. So its is an extension point, but for advanced users that know how to
> do it looking at the code.
> You mustn't document the interface of the algorithm class even in this
I should remove the description of algorithm from the docu?
> Don't forget that my point was related to time_points.
in the case of time_points it is a little bit complicated. algorithm,
fiber-schdulers and the sync. primitives use steady_clock::time_point.
I don't see how I could make this flexible so that it would work with all
kinds of clocks from boost.chrono.
the only possibility would be to make the member-functions and the classes
(for instance condition_variable) templates (clock-type as template
but this would be make the complete code templated and uncomfortable.
I thought that using one clock (steady_clock would be preferable) is OK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk