Re: [boost] Updated version of futures library

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-02 15:26:00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 02 June 2008 13:02 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> That aside, I'm not sure why you need future_value semantics. Let's assume
> that one has a primitive
>
>     future<R> async( F f, A1 a1, ..., An an );
>
> that schedules bind(f,a1,a2,...,an) for execution. It wouldn't be hard to
> make it recognize when Ai is future<Bi> 

Oh, I came up with a reason that having future_value objects as inputs can be  
preferable to the solution you describe.  Your solution forces the "lifted" 
functions to always take templates arguments.  But template methods can't be 
made virtual.  Also, you can't pass them to bind() without manually 
specifying all the template parameters.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIRElJ5vihyNWuA4URAhRkAJ9LaXtCBzMOQnC7QuMHdchQqs27owCg6gIv
SeowJjoPt+Fy4CJwjKRoXJE=
=wkfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----