From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 10:44:27
Johan Torp <johan.torp_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Peter Dimov-5 wrote:
>>> is_ready doesn't trigger the callback, so this won't work.
>>> OTOH, I think is_ready should trigger the callback, even for the "run
>>> work in wait()" thread pool use case.
>> ready() should trigger a separate "ready callback", since its semantics
>> not the same.
>> (f1 || f2).ready :- f1.ready || f2.ready
>> (f1 || f2).wait :- wait_for_any(f1, f2)
> No, (f1 || f2).ready != f1.ready || f2.ready.
> f1 can be ready and false, in which case we need to wait for f2 to become
> ready until the composite future is ready.
What does it mean for a shared_future<string> to be "ready and false"?
I view "f1 || f2" as a short-hand for a call to wait_for_any(f1,f2)
followed by either f1.get() or f2.get() depending on which was ready
>> Java futures don't have this callback proliferation problem because they
>> class future
>> virtual void wait() = 0;
>> virtual bool ready() = 0;
> There are other ways of solving this too, without exposing callbacks.
Can you suggest some?
-- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk