> On 5 Jun 2026, at 21:06, Jacob Champion <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:31 AM Jacob Champion > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Attached. The static_assert for the millisecond calculation is the >> only part I don't really like, but doing an overflow check on a >> calculation that can't overflow int64 is even more verbose/wasteful. > > I was preparing to commit this for beta1 last week, and I realized > that I've changed my tune. With all the recent backports of overflow > checks, I think I need to be reaching for them by default, especially > in a non-performance-critical path. > > v2 rewrites that part with a checked multiplication, which removes any > need for a static_assert complication.
I agree with this approach, +1 on this version. > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:18 AM Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> When teading "disabled timer" I interpret that as a timer which is 0 and has >> no >> interval (which might be due to not being a native speaker), but what it >> actually describes is an interval which (in practice) never ends. Perhaps it >> could be phrased more like "for most people is going to be equivalent to a >> never ending interval". > > This has been completely rewritten now; see what you think. LGTM. -- Daniel Gustafsson
