My first proposal of Boost.Chrono included Stopwatches, but some on this list sugested that i would be better to split the library :(
That design still has merit, but -
If no body is agains I will move Boost.Stopwatches to the namespace boost::chrono, remove the reporting facilities, and find a date for a review.
My point was that since you own Chrono you can add whatever you want to it. So you could get something distributed now and see about a review later.
But perhaps I'm the only one thinking the need for a Boost.Timer replacement is urgent.
Nod. Sounds like an important addition to me. IMO a small addition of a stopwatch could be done without a formal review - maybe just post the design and get feedback? But something like: template <class Clock> struct stopwatch { void reset(); double elapsed(); }; would seem hard to go wrong with? OK arguably the result of elapsed() should be a duration, but that makes it harder to use.... BTW I spotted a typo in your docs: "The standard defines tree system-wide clocks" ^^ John.