Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thorsten Schuett (schuett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-18 01:39:49

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 17:53, Martin Wille wrote:
> Thorsten Schuett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2005 16:06, Martin Wille wrote:
> >>I think that would be viable. Another approach would be to pass a
> >>combiner (similar to what Boost.Signals does) and to use
> >>optional<whatever> as return types.
> optional<> would be insufficient if we don't have only success/failure
> but some quality indicator. We could return a result if one of the
> futures returns a result with quality == "best". Otherwise, we have to
> wait until all the futures involved have returned a result.
> (Something like that would be useful for running several heuristic
> algorithms in parallel with a suitable definition of "best")
How about adding an future-container + an iterator over this container?
Probably we can use the 'or'-future as the container.

simple_future<Result> f1;
simple_future<Result> fn;

future<Result> f = f1 || ... || fn;

Result result;
for(future<Result>::iterator it = f.begin(); f.end() != it; ++it){
  if(*it "better than" threshold){
    result = *it;
    //f.cancel() ???

Then you could iterate over the future until your result is good enough. Using
this interface everybody can create his own compositions.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at