Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-19 22:26:23

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> 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
>> container.
> Turns out the Gaskill future is also default constructible, according to its
> docs. Where did the idea they neither were default constructible come from?

My bad. I was thinking more about the "validity" of default
constructed futures that don't have an associated promise. I was under
the impression that there wasn't a way to create a future without an
existing promise object. So something like:


Would introduce an either invalid future whose value could not ever be
set through an associated promise.

Dean Michael C. Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at