> > Ok, sure. I can't really see anything wrong with your argument. That said, > I still don't want to change this lightly. While this would make life > easier for users, they are already used to the library. If I get rid of it > and then want/need it back it won't be nice. So I'll put this on my > to be considered list, ok?
Sure thing ;) > > > > which only provides microsecond duration resolution, but only requires a > > > single 64 bit integer to represent a time value. The bottom line is that > > > fractional seconds is a count of the number of fractional seconds at the > > > given resolution. > > > > Maybe still, for simplicity you could have a time_duration::nanoseconds() > > function. > > I agree this would be nice. Of course, I think this will need to fail > compilation if the resolution doesn't support nanoseconds. Not really. If lets say the fractional_seconds are milliseconds, then you should return ticks() * 1000 (I think) > > > Also, now that I come to think of it :), the following functions would come > > in handy: > > > > time_duration::total_hours() - the number of hours (ignoring mins, secs, > > etc.) > > Don't see how this would be different from the current method. It wouldn't ;) Just to be consistent ;) Best, JOhn _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost