From: Braddock Gaskill (braddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-16 14:24:46
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:37:33 -0400, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
>> Hrm, this has profound implications. I don't know if they are good or
>> bad, but they go beyond my current understanding of the future idiom.
> It could be implemented as a free function instead of a constructor, to
> give it a little conceptual separation from the future class proper.
Yeah, maybe I'll make a seperate "future_friends.hpp" with free functions for
adding a future callback or a general conversion function. That way people can
sort of hook into the implementation if they are making a broader framework and
know what they are doing (like libpoet vector adaptors or compositions), but
with a clear "do not abuse this at home" banner.
I can see many interesting uses of these future adaptor functions, but at the
end of the day an object that you call to get a return value and any arbitrary
behavior is called a "functor" not a "future".
I've previously developed a sort of heavyweight future concept that
I called a "place". I'm excited about discovering futures because they are
MORE constrained, while my "place" concept was powerful and convenient, but
always left me wondering if I'd covered every conceivable case. I'll still be
using "place" where needed, but future everywhere else...
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