Re: [Boost-users] inconvenient for boost::thread::sleep

From: Mauricio Gomes (mg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-05 13:59:39

"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_at_[hidden]
> 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.