inconvenient for boost::thread::sleep
boost::thread::sleep, IMHO, it's too inconvenient. I get these example code to sleep 1 second, { boost::xtime xt; boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC); xt.sec += 1; // change xt to next second boost::thread::sleep(xt); } and, only 1 line in another platform(origianl plaform or java) { sleep(1000); } hmmm... Too inconvenient, and, to make things worse, quite a heavy calling. Is there any suggestion for me? Thanks.
The thread library is still in heavy development. There has been some dispute as the best way to handle sleeping. For now, you can either do it the boost way, or simply use the lower level sleep call. I currently use the lower level sleep call in many circumstances, and will switch over when boost has a more convenient and efficient way of doing it. On 10/3/05, RocWood <rocwood@21cn.com> wrote:
boost::thread::sleep, IMHO, it's too inconvenient.
I get these example code to sleep 1 second, { boost::xtime xt; boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC); xt.sec += 1; // change xt to next second boost::thread::sleep(xt); } and, only 1 line in another platform(origianl plaform or java) { sleep(1000); }
hmmm... Too inconvenient, and, to make things worse, quite a heavy calling.
Is there any suggestion for me? Thanks.
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Why not just write a wrapper function to make it as easy as you want? Like: void sleep_seconds( unsigned int nSeconds ) { boost::xtime xt; boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC); xt.sec += nSeconds; // change xt to next second boost::thread::sleep(xt); } Christian
"Make commonly used things easy make rare difficult things possible". In my opinion something like: /// Current thread sleep. void sleep (unsigned int microseconds); It is the most common use and providing a standard library version of this is, in my opinion, a good thing because: 1. Makes it easy for novices to use it. 2. Makes it more convenient for the experienced. I am with RocWood, I think an API should be simple, even obvious for the simple commonly used stuff. Best regards, Maurício Gomes Pensar Digital 55-11-4121-6287 (Brazil) On Oct 4, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Christian Henning wrote:
Why not just write a wrapper function to make it as easy as you want?
Like:
void sleep_seconds( unsigned int nSeconds ) { boost::xtime xt; boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC); xt.sec += nSeconds; // change xt to next second boost::thread::sleep(xt); }
Christian
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
boost::thread::sleep, IMHO, it's too inconvenient. RocWood wrote: I get these example code to sleep 1 second, { boost::xtime xt; boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC); xt.sec += 1; // change xt to next second boost::thread::sleep(xt); } and, only 1 line in another platform(origianl plaform or java) { sleep(1000); } hmmm... Too inconvenient, and, to make things worse, quite a heavy calling. Is there any suggestion for me? Thanks.
participants (4)
-
Christian Henning -
Matt Amato -
Mauricio Gomes -
RocWood