On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:40:17PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >This is part 1 of the patch I sent yesterday. >See previous mails for background info. >Here are some more details: > >hires_ms::minperiod Make NO_COPY for per process initialization. >hires_ms::resolution For use in sleep and alarm >hires_ms::dmsecs Ditto >_DELAY_MAX Ditto >hires_ms::~hires_ms Delete, rely on Windows end of process cleanup. > Note that previous version could call timeEndPeriod > even when timeBeginPeriod had not been called.
I guess I'm not making my point very clearly. Here's an example of what I'd like to see. "I've deleted the destructor for hires_ms because all of the uses of it are static so the appropriate cleanup will be handled automatically anyway. In fact, since the destructor is always invoked regardless of whether the static variable has been used, it would end up uselessly calling timeEndPeriod." Descriptions like this make the reason for the change obvious. Merely stating that something is basically a challenge to go try to recreate your thought process. Scratching my head over "I wonder why he thinks that" is what causes patch acceptance to be delayed. Anyway, since I now understand the reason for the above mentioned change, I've checked it in. Now on to the rest of your patch... cgf
