From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-09 19:00:34
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Indeed, the intent has been for futures to support arbitrary
> task execution, not just the simple thread per task model.
> One could imagine
> using futures over an interprocess protocol or TCP/IP.
> My current proposal for std::future<R> is available at
May I ask why you saw it necessary to have std::fork in that
incarnation? Won't you /always/ do the same thing?
I'm not sure why we couldn't have it be implied that construction of a
future implies "fork".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk