I'm with Matt on this one but if there are serious objections I'll let this
die
http://codereview.chromium.org/173234/show
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Matt Perry mpcompl...@chromium.orgwrote:
Defining operator is fine. Other types do this:
We have that operator defined for a bunch of random types (gfx::Rect
comes to mind) so I think if there's a compilation overheard it should
be fixed in other places as well.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Scherkusscher...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm with Matt on this one but if there are
Defining operator is fine. Other types do this:
Andrew Scherkus wrote:
Any opposition to globally declaring an operator ostream overload for
TimeDelta in base/time.h?
According to style guide it needs to be fully justified, but it'd be nice to
use DCHECK_xx/EXEPCT_xx/ASSERT_xx with TimeDeltas.
I think this is fine.
Mark
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Scherkus scher...@chromium.orgwrote:
Any opposition to globally declaring an operator ostream overload for
TimeDelta in base/time.h?
This will pull the stream headers into all files that use time.h. Is that
going to bloat any code or cost compile time?
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 16:02, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Scherkus scher...@chromium.orgwrote:
Any opposition to globally declaring an operator ostream overload for
TimeDelta in base/time.h?
This will pull the stream headers into all
+1 for Peter's suggestion.
TimeDelta has an internal accuracy of microseconds. What resolution/scaling
do you want to print in a check? Sometimes it is minutes, sometimes
seconds, sometimes milliseconds, I doubt that we want microseconds :-/.
Explicit conversion as suggested doesn't seem that
Andrew wants to be able to do:
DCHECK_EQ(expected_time_delta, time_delta);
This can't be done without operator support.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jim Roskind j...@chromium.org wrote:
+1 for Peter's suggestion.
TimeDelta has an internal accuracy of microseconds. What
I know microseconds aren't a very user-friendly format, but for unit tests
and DCHECKs I'm more interested in whether the assertion is simply true.
Perhaps I'm lazy but I'd prefer:
EXPECT_EQ(kExpected, foo);
error: Value of: foo
Actual: 2100
Expected: kExpected
Which is: 2200
...over:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Andrew Scherkusscher...@chromium.org wrote:
I know microseconds aren't a very user-friendly format, but for unit tests
and DCHECKs I'm more interested in whether the assertion is simply true.
Perhaps I'm lazy but I'd prefer:
EXPECT_EQ(kExpected, foo);
error:
Looking at the example you gavehow about:
EXPECT_EQ(kExpected.InMilliseconds(), foo.InMilliseconds());
Is that really that painful to write?
...and you could get all the microseconds to compare if you wanted to via
...InMicroseconds().
I suspect you don't really want absolute comparisons at
11 matches
Mail list logo
