From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-20 09:32:44
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 19 May 2008 22:26 pm, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> 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.
Futures are assignable, so a default constructed future could later be
assigned a future that does have an associated promise.
-----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