Re: [boost] [SoC][Coroutine] Coroutine design

From: Xi Wang (xi.wang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-05 15:56:33

It looks great.
I still don't catch why there must be a "self" as the first parameter
in a coroutine definition. Could the "current" function help here?
If removed, the "yield" function would be much easier to use.

Another question is, does a "coroutine" object act as both a coroutine
instance and a coroutine factory? According to the examples it seems
that sometimes  a coroutine binds data when created, and sometimes
a coroutine uses operator () to create a new instance, right?

Xi

On 5/6/06, Giovanni P. Deretta <gpderetta_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hello boosters,
>
> As some of you know, I've been working on a coroutine library. As some
> have expressed interest in it, I've decided to participate to the google
> SoC, as a student, with this project (and boost as a mentor of course :))
>
> I've not yet formally applied because I wanted first to write a detailed
> description of the project. After four sleepless nights I'm finally
> (mostly) done and ready to accept critics (let's hope no flames!).  You
> can find the design at http://libstream.sf.net/index_c.html .
>
> Under the boost vault, in the concurrency folder there is already my
> first attempt at this problem (the package is continuation.tar.gz). It
> could be useful to evaluate the earlier attempt at the solution, that
> has driven me to write a more consistent design. Be warned that the code
> in that package does not compile (and is unix only).
>
> I will submit the project to Google later this week..
>
> So, anyone interested?
> --
> Giovanni P. Deretta
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>