From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-19 10:17:30
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 19 May 2008 10:05 am, Anthony Williams wrote:
> "Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Right now, having futures non-default constructable makes it hard(er)
> > to put them in standard containers.
> The futures in my proposal can be default-constructed. unique_future
> requires a move-aware container, but shared_future should be usable in any
Turns out the Gaskill future is also default constructible, according to its
docs. Where did the idea they neither were default constructible come from?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk