From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 16:56:59
> > This reminds me of a discussion we had some time ago, namely
> > operator&&() for futures allowing to achieve the same thing: waiting
> for all
> > of the futures:
> Yes. I was trying to stay away from the overloaded operators, but this
> is certainly the same issue.
Are you interested in something like this?
What's your reason for 'staying away' from the operators so far?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk