Re: [boost] [futures] boost::futures - segmentation fault

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-16 09:30:24

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 15 March 2007 23:30 pm, Braddock Gaskill wrote:
> There is no future 
> "proxying" or "chaining" of futures, per se, instead all future
> references point to the same implementation object under the hood, but
> do abstract the actual retrieval of the value. The effect is largely the
> same.

Is this an implementation detail, or does it change the semantics?  For 
example, if I the class A is convertible to B and B is convertible to C, 
but A is not directly convertible to C, can I get a future<C> from a 
future<A> by going through a future<B> as an intermediary?  Or would it 
try (and fail) to convert the A value directly to a C value?

- -- 
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF+pvx5vihyNWuA4URAsKIAKDgi9ekzMWX3+znwUPbNG3jT0c/tACcDvnn
L9nZ2nRIBZHC3gNIR06M5sY=
=WCB8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----