Re: [boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-08 10:11:22

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, I don't really feel like arguing about this much longer.
>
> I'd love to contribute to this discussion but there's no firm ground to
> stand on. What _are_ the concepts being discussed? I think I see
>
> AsyncCall<R>
>
>   AsyncCall(function<R ()> f);
>
>   void operator()();
>
> // effects: f();
>
>   R result() const;
>
> // if operator()() hasn't been invoked, throw;
> // if operator()() is still executing, block;
> // otherwise, return the value returned by f().
>
> but I'm not sure.

That's the general idea.  Of course we can haggle over the syntactic
details, but the main question is whether you can get a return value
from invoking a thread function or whether you have to declare some
"global" state and ask the thread function to modify it.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com