From: Christopher Kohlhoff (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-14 17:39:19
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:26:11 -0400, "Braddock Gaskill"
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:09:37 -0400, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> > Another suggestion is to rename promise::set() (boring) to
> > promise::fulfill() (makes me smile). And if there is an opportunity to
> > work the name "empty_promise" in as a class or a concept, that would be
> > clever too.
> Personally, I love your fulfill() name. I would also prefer fail() to
> set_exception()...it seems more descriptive since it is more than just an
> accessor method. I didn't want to stray TOO far from Peter's C++
> language proposal though.
I totally agree on using fulfill/fail rather than set/set_exception.
IMHO pithy names like that also aid in understanding the concepts.
Perhaps Peter can be persuaded :)
I also didn't see an operator() on the promise<T> to set the value
(although I might have missed it). I think that's important because it
lets a promises participate more readily in boost::bind compositions,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk