Re: [boost] Review Request: future library (N2561/Williams version)

From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-05 12:43:10

Hi,

why we don't need to protect get_future() function of multiple thread 
access?

        // Result retrieval
        unique_future<R> get_future()
        {
            if(!future)
            {
                throw future_moved();
            }
            if(future_obtained)
            {
                throw future_already_retrieved();
            }
            future_obtained=true;
            return unique_future<R>(future);
        }
Best
_____________________
Vicente Juan Botet Escriba

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: [boost] Review Request: future library (N2561/Williams version)

> Hi all,
>
> Having just uploaded my prototype of N2561 futures to my website, I would 
> like
> it to be considered for review alongside Braddock Gaskill's version. It is 
> not
> as rich in features as Braddock's version, but this is the current 
> proposal
> before the C++ committee. I intend to update the proposal in time for the 
> next
> committee mailing, which is 16th May, so would be grateful if people could
> comment before then, even if we don't get a formal review. It currently
> requires the boost trunk.
>
> http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/files/n2561_future.hpp
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2561.html
>
> Anthony
> -- 
> Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
> Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
> Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
> Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>