From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-12 17:25:27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 12 March 2007 17:12 pm, Braddock Gaskill wrote:
> A weakness in the future<> concept, as I understand it, is that if a
> future is never set(), then the invoking thread can hang waiting for it.
> Not very RAII.
> The situation is much improved if future<T> and promise<T> are split,
> and promise<T> is reference counted. If the last promise<T> for a
> particular future<T> goes out of scope, than any thread waiting on the
> matching future<T> would be failed with a promise_broken exception or
> Is this already part of the promise<T> concept?
No, at least it wasn't in the code Chris posted. I like the idea though,
thanks. I'm going to incorporate it into my code.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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