Re: [boost] [futures] boost::futures

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-09 19:15:22

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov

> > I'm not sure why we couldn't have it be implied that 
> construction of a
> > future implies "fork".
> 
> I didn't want to sacrifice the generality we already did 
> have. :-) You can 
> still make your non-blocking API (an active object, a C++ RPC 
> interface) 
> return a future. std::fork is merely a convenient way to use 
> an efficient 
> system-provided thread pool. Nothing stops you from writing 
> your own 'fork' 
> that doesn't, as shown in N2096. 

I think I get it. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of (default)
allocators. I've implemented a futures-like concept that went kind of
along those lines so I guess I am a bit biased :)

Thanks,

Sohail