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

From: Matt Amato (matt.amato_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 08:27:55

    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_at_[hidden]> 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_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>