From: Braddock Gaskill (braddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-10 22:11:21
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:17:25 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:
> I no longer like future<>::cancel. :-)
future<T>::cancel is an impurity - I completely agree and devoted an
aside to that in my documentation. But many will find it useful.
Future variables really should have nothing to do with task management.
This is a major confusion which I've seen in prior future implementations
and standard proposals.
Futures themselves should not be inherently tied to thread creation or
anything else...very limiting. I provide a few hooks so that you can tie
futures to any scheduler, rpc scheme, or other asynchronous "backend".
> Have you considered the alternative
> of automatically invoking the cancel handler when no futures remain? This
> requires that a promise and a future be created at once:
> pair<promise,future> pc = create_channel();
The thought crossed my mind, but there are too many places in real-world
usage (I've had a lot now) where I find I want to get a future from a
promise. I think it might be awkward to store both, and defeats the
intention of automatic cancelation.
> or, if empty futures are allowed:
I allow empty futures. I tried without, but it got too awkward at times.
> future f; // empty/detached
> promise p(f); // attach p to f
If I can create a new promise from a future, then I can no longer detect
a "broken promise" exception (when the last promise associated with a
future goes out of scope for whatever reason, possibly leaving a future
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk