From: Braddock Gaskill (braddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 11:31:13
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:42:36 -0400, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> count in the promise would require the future's destructor to do a
> cancel() to be at all useful. That causes problems for me, because I
> don't want method requests to be cancelled just because the returned
> future was ignored and went out of scope.
Yes, I considered the same last-future-out-of-scope-cancels behavior, and also
decided against it for the same reason. Also, since any existing promise can
be used to obtain more future's, having no future instances for a given promise
does not necessarily mean there won't be future instances later.
Independent validation is nice, I'm glad we're working in the same space.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk