From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 07:52:41
Anthony Williams-4 wrote:
>> After thinking more carefully on the problem I've realized it is
>> implementable using condition variables. Here is a revised proposal,
>> which -
>> for now - excludes barriers.
> Given wait_for_any and wait_for_all (see my latest revision), I don't
> think we need these more complex composite classes in many cases, and
> where we do they might be better implemented specifically for the case
> at hand.
I agree we do not need this complex functionality in most cases. I too want
to find a minimal interface which we can implement and get accepted into
boost first, then we can add rich functionality - as Gaskill's proposal - on
top of it. I hope we can find something much simpler than what I proposed
without exposing the "completed callback". I fear that it might be difficult
I don't think your proposed interface is powerful enough to implement
composed futures, but I might be wrong. For instance, how would you
implement future operators with it?
future<bool> operator||(future<bool> lhs, future<bool> rhs);
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-future--Early-draft-of-wait-for-multiple-futures-interface-tp17242880p17557125.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk