On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 04:15:34PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 04:41:34PM +0300, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> > Good thing to have, but it is quite boring to create.
> 
> And difficult to be sure it's comprehensive.
> 
> +        TimeDiff status_interval(0,ResMgr::Query("cmd:status-interval", 0));
> +        Time last_status;
> 
> I'm still confused as to the point of a "difference of time" class; what
> is gained?  Time is an amount of time (and acts as time of day using the
> standard epoch paradigm, storing time in terms of "amount of time".)

Time+TimeDiff is a time since epoch, Time+Time is not defined. That's the main
difference. Other difference is in the name, TimeDiff underlines that it is
not a time but amount of time.

Of course Time and TimeDiff can be encoded in time_t and an int, but this
does not make them equivalent. Maybe a lower level base class would be
useful here.

> Since Time is always an amount of time, that makes TimeDiff confusing--a
> data type that's effectively the difference of two numbers?  That's like
> having separate (incompatible) time_t and time_diff_t data types, or int
> and int_diff.  (Same thing, the latter just shows the problem more clearly.)

Would you argue that no classes consisting of a single int are needed?

> In any case, there *is* no TimeDiff class; CVS currently doesn't
> compile.  Forget to commit something?

I have accidently committed some unfinished changes, will commit the rest later.

> Are you still finding Timer confusing?  (Asking since you apparently
> removed its use.)

I decided to redo it, call methods differently and reset it manually.

-- 
   Alexander.

Reply via email to