Re: [boost] Functions as Filters (was Program Reuse ...)

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-08 17:53:57

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Austern" <austern_at_[hidden]>

> <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Any comments or suggestions? Is this a direction people would like to see
>> continued? Also is anyone interested in collaborating?
>
> Allow the two functions to be run as coroutines, and you'll have
> something really interesting.

That would be quite feasable I believe using boost::threads. I think that 
this would make most sense as a separate class, i.e.

co_filter(MyProc) | co_filter(MyProc)

Do you agree?

On another note, I am thinking that it makes perfect sense to allow these 
kinds of pipe expressions to be combined with devices and filters as defined 
in the boost::iostreams library.

source | input_filter | filter(MyProc) | output_filter | sink;

I am concerned about the name "filter" because it clashes with 
iostreams::filter, perhaps fxn_filter and co_fxn_filter make more sense? Any 
suggestions?

Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com
http://www.heron-language.com