Re: [boost] [GSoC] Scheduled Executors beta 1 release

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Scheduled Executors beta 1 release
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-27 08:48:24

On 27/07/2014 04:32 a.m., Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 26/07/14 22:09, Agustín K-ballo Bergé a écrit :
>> On 26/07/2014 03:02 p.m., Ian Forbes wrote:
>>>>> This defaults to `boost::chrono::steady_clock`. There is a static
>>>>> assert to ensure that `Clock` is steady.
>>>
>>>> Given that you restrict everything to steady clocks, What's the
>>>> rationale for restricting to a single `time_point` instantiation only?
>>>> Furthermore, restricting to a single `duration` makes absolutely no
>>>> sense. Any `duration` can be mapped to a steady `time_point` and still
>>>> meet the timing specifications.
>>>
>>> This seems to be a popular request. I will look into it.
>>
>> I am not surprised. Note that proper Chrono support is trivial for any
>> Clock for all your timed operations but some of those involving a
>> `sync_timed_queue`.
>>
>> You may wanna read the following
>> http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com/post-15/rant-on-the-templated-nature-of-stdchrono
>> . It was partly motivated by the poor choices made by the executors
>> proposal.
> Thanks for this pointer. Really very interesting.
>
> There is a type here
>    auto d =
> std::chrono::conversion_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(rel_time);

Fixed, thanks.

Regards,
-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com