On 27/07/2014 04:32 a.m., Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 26/07/14 22:09, Agustín K-ballo Bergé a écrit :
On 26/07/2014 03:02 p.m., Ian Forbes wrote:
This defaults to `boost::chrono::steady_clock`. There is a static assert to ensure that `Clock` is steady.
Given that you restrict everything to steady clocks, What's the rationale for restricting to a single `time_point` instantiation only? Furthermore, restricting to a single `duration` makes absolutely no sense. Any `duration` can be mapped to a steady `time_point` and still meet the timing specifications.
This seems to be a popular request. I will look into it.
I am not surprised. Note that proper Chrono support is trivial for any Clock for all your timed operations but some of those involving a `sync_timed_queue`.
You may wanna read the following http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com/post-15/rant-on-the-templated-nature-of-st... . It was partly motivated by the poor choices made by the executors proposal. Thanks for this pointer. Really very interesting.
There is a type here auto d = std::chrono::conversion_caststd::chrono::nanoseconds(rel_time);
Fixed, thanks. Regards, -- Agustín K-ballo Bergé.- http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com