Hi, while specific compilers can provide a chrono library it is not sure that the library works without some C++0x laguage feature. I have to work with compiler versions that do not supporting C++0x features. I would prefer to use on these compilers a C++98 adaptation of the standard chrono library than nothing. If you don't mind I'd like to take it and request a formal review as the library has a fixed interface and a quite stable implementation. Best regards, Vicente ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> To: "Boost Developers List" <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:59 PM Subject: [boost] [chrono] Motivation for Boost version evaporating
The motivation for a Boost version of <chrono> seems to be evaporating since GCC 4.4.0 has shipped with an implementation and Microsoft has also signaled they intend to ship a C++0x standard library implementation sooner rather than later.
Thus I'm no longer interested in working on a Boost version.
If anyone else would like to take it on, that's OK with me, but I don't see enough benefit to Boost to make the effort worthwhile.
--Beman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost