Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-04 15:13:42

2015-09-04 21:05 GMT+02:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:

> On 9/4/2015 3:46 PM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé
>> <kaballo86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I just had a quick look at the future implementation, to see if proper
>>> chrono support (one of the reasons for my previous rejection) was
>>> implemented. While `wait_for` depicts the standard signature, it does not
>>> seem `wait_until` does.
>>>
>>
>> I want to make it as easy as possible for Oliver to act on people's
>> feedback. Please suggest a specific change?
>>
>
> That would be:
>
> "- Every API involving time point or duration should accept arbitrary
> clock types, immediately converting to a canonical duration type for
> internal use."
>

future<> has an overload for wait_until()

template< typename ClockType >
future_status wait_until( typename ClockType::time_point const&) const;