Don G <dongryphon <at> yahoo.com> writes:
* timeout constructors are inconsistent. One takes
What about Bob Bell's suggestion of using double? Would there be concerns about the overhead in all of the double -> integer conversions necessary to interface with the various OS-level APIs? Having constructors from a few possible argument types (e.g. double, int seconds + int <subseconds type TBD>) seems to make sense.
I like the multiple ctors approach. Is this roughly what you have in mind?
timeout (uint_t seconds, uint_t micros); timeout (uint64_t microsecs); timeout (double seconds);
I don't have any strong opinions on the network library design, but since I'm sort of involved due to my suggestion about using doubles, I want to point out that a concern I have with multiple constructors is potential for ambiguity: timeout t(100); If there is an automatic conversion from int to unit64_t (whatever that is), this would be ambiguous. Further, there's an ambiguity to the reader: what is the intention of this definition: 100 seconds or 100 microseconds? With a single constructor, both issues go away. Bob