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

From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-26 03:43:54

Frank Mori Hess-2 wrote:
> 
> The more general solution that accepts multiple arguments would be like 
> future_barrier, except it would accept an additional first argument that 
> is the conversion function, and it would return a future<R> where the 
> value R for the returned future is obtained by calling the conversion 
> function with all the values from the input futures.  So it might look 
> something like
> 
> R combining_function(const T1 &t1, const T2 &t2, ..., const TN &tn);
> 
> future<T1> f1;
> future<T1> f2;
> //...
> future<T1> fN;
> 
> future<R> result = future_combining_barrier(&combining_function, f1, 
> f2, ..., fN);
> 

This is how I imagine the barrier/wait-for-all case looks too. The
select/switch/wait-for-any case is tricker if we wan't to supply the same
type safety for heterogenous types. 

Johan
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Review-Request%3A-future-library-%28Gaskill-version%29-tp16600402p17467301.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.