[Boost.DateTime] Error in documentation?
The description of the time_duration::ticks_per_second method reads: "Return the number of ticks in a second. For example, if the duration supports nanoseconds then the returned result will be 1000000." Shouldn't it be 1000000000 or change nano to micro? Found at: http://www.boost.org/doc/html/date_time/posix_time.html#date_time.posix_time... and in cvs at: http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/time_duration.xml?revision=1.12&view=markup Thanks
johneddy101@comcast.net wrote:
The description of the time_duration::ticks_per_second method reads:
"Return the number of ticks in a second. For example, if the duration supports nanoseconds then the returned result will be 1000000."
Shouldn't it be 1000000000 or change nano to micro?
Found at: http://www.boost.org/doc/html/date_time/posix_time.html#date_time.posix_time...
and in cvs at: http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/time_duration.xml?revision=1.12&view=markup http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/time_duration.xml?revision=1.12&view=markup
Could the figure be made clearer too, so the user doesn't have to count the zeros? Something like one of the following (assuming the correct figure is 1000000000; change as necessary if 1000000 is the correct figure): "... the returned result will be 1000000000 (that is, 10^9)" [1] "... the returned result will be 1000000000 (that is, 1E+9)" [2] "... the returned result will be 1,000,000,000" [3] "... the returned result will be 1000000000 (one thousand million)" [4] [1] Is the caret universally recognised as the symbol for exponentation? [2] Probably the best option, as all Boost users will understand this notation. [3] But this could be misunderstood by readers in continental Europe, where the comma is used as a decimal point. [4] Prefer this to "one billion", which can be ambiguous: UK usage tends to follow US usage these days and use "billion" for 10^9, although some still stick to 10^12; "one thousand million" avoids any problems.
Paul Giaccone wrote:
johneddy101@comcast.net wrote:
The description of the time_duration::ticks_per_second method reads:
"Return the number of ticks in a second. For example, if the duration supports nanoseconds then the returned result will be 1000000."
Shouldn't it be 1000000000 or change nano to micro?
Found at: http://www.boost.org/doc/html/date_time/posix_time.html#date_time.posix_time...
and in cvs at: http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/time_duration.xml?revision=1.12&view=markup http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/boost/libs/date_time/xmldoc/time_duration.xml?revision=1.12&view=markup
Could the figure be made clearer too, so the user doesn't have to count the zeros? Something like one of the following (assuming the correct figure is 1000000000; change as necessary if 1000000 is the correct figure):
"... the returned result will be 1000000000 (that is, 10^9)" [1] "... the returned result will be 1000000000 (that is, 1E+9)" [2] "... the returned result will be 1,000,000,000" [3] "... the returned result will be 1000000000 (one thousand million)" [4]
[1] Is the caret universally recognised as the symbol for exponentation? [2] Probably the best option, as all Boost users will understand this notation. [3] But this could be misunderstood by readers in continental Europe, where the comma is used as a decimal point. [4] Prefer this to "one billion", which can be ambiguous: UK usage tends to follow US usage these days and use "billion" for 10^9, although some still stick to 10^12; "one thousand million" avoids any problems.
Thx for the bug report and suggestions. I've checked a fix into both rc_1_34 and cvs head the says: Return the number of ticks in a second. For example, if the duration supports nanoseconds then the returned result will be 1,000,000,000 (1e+9). Jeff
participants (3)
-
Jeff Garland -
johneddy101＠comcast.net -
Paul Giaccone