Re: [Boost-users] [boost-thread] why not writ e "sleep" in a better

From: Lars Hagstro (lars_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-01 09:53:21

Yep, I agree. The thread sleep function is terrible.
I'd like a function that takes a boost::posix_time::time_duration.
One solution could be to add a simple utility function that just takes a
time_duration and returns an xtime. Then you could do;

boost::thread::sleep(boost::to_xtime(boost::posix_time::microseconds(230)));

Cheers
Lars

hongleij_at_[hidden] wrote:
> hi:
> it really a trouble thing for me to use boost::thread::sleep()
> :
> boost::xtime helloworldtime;
>  boost::xtime_get(&helloworldtime, boost::TIME_UTC);
>  helloworldtime.sec += 6;
>  boost::thread::sleep(helloworldtime);
> 
> i think
> "boost::thread::sleep(1500) //millisecond   "
>  may easy my programming;if have such interface;
> now i use :
> 
> void thread_sleep(unsigned int interval) //millisecond
> {
>     boost::xtime xt;
>     boost::xtime_get(&xt, boost::TIME_UTC);
>     int sec=interval/1000;
>     int msec=interval-1000*sec;
>     xt.nsec += 1000*1000*msec;
>     xt.sec+= sec;
>     boost::thread::sleep(xt);    
> }
> 
> best wishes;-)
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ïë¼ÓÈëÂð£¿1.9ÒÚÓû§ÕýÔÚʹÓÃÍøÒ×ÓÊÏä www.126.com <http://www.126.com/>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users