ROSRate to be useless without chain to clock pointer about rclcpp HOT 4 CLOSED

Okay, I got it. The idea with making the analogue of node->create_timer(), but for rate: create_rate() seems good for me. However, I'd like to be consistent and separate rclcpp::ROSRate removal and node->create_rate() tasks into two PR tickets, since I am not sure that I will have a room for adding new API right now. But I believe to remove unused API from RCLCPP is higher prio. task (to avoid end-developers to use it).

from rclcpp.

Yicks, good to point that out

I like solution 3 from an end user API perspective. Messing with time sources should not be required for standard application code to benefit from ROS time -- any method that would require that would break my soul.

Instead of just deleting it, we could shape it elsewhere. For instance: node->create_rate(double hz) analog to other create_*() factories in Node and rclcpp::. That could implicitly use this->get_clock() which is or isn't already set by use sim time.

from rclcpp.

+1 for solution 3

from rclcpp.

I will go ahead to close this in favor of #2326

from rclcpp.