Re: [boost] [futures] untyped_promise or future<void>

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.

-braddock