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
> 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 :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk