2014/1/10 Vicente J. Botet Escriba
I understand why I was lost by the algorithm function description. The fact that you showed the algorithm interface make me though that this is an extension point pf the library. You must remove this a just say that there are two scheduler.
OK
Hrr. So its is an extension point, but for advanced users that know how to do it looking at the code. You mustn't document the interface of the algorithm class even in this case.
I should remove the description of algorithm from the docu?
Don't forget that my point was related to time_points.
in the case of time_points it is a little bit complicated. algorithm, fiber-schdulers and the sync. primitives use steady_clock::time_point. I don't see how I could make this flexible so that it would work with all kinds of clocks from boost.chrono. the only possibility would be to make the member-functions and the classes (for instance condition_variable) templates (clock-type as template parameter). but this would be make the complete code templated and uncomfortable. I thought that using one clock (steady_clock would be preferable) is OK.