From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-11 13:05:31
Braddock Gaskill wrote:
> Here is another question/comment as I move through this
> I see a strong need for future<void>.
> If I build my multi-threaded task scheduling system around future, I
> likely have some invocations which do not return a value, but which I
> do want
> to synchronize with, receive exceptions from, and possibly cancel().
> Has there been any work/thoughts how to handle this? Should
> future<void> be allowed?
N2185 does include a future<void> specialization.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk