From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-02 19:45:14
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 02 June 2008 18:12 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> The pseudocode isn't even O(N); it's O(NlnN) at best, maybe worse. :-) Do
> note that it doesn't necessarily dispatch a single request per wait_for_any
> call though.
Your pseudocode putting the futures in a set does bring up a missing feature
in both the proposals. They don't provide an operator<() that is a strict
weak ordering so they can be used as keys. A future_handle should have no
problem providing an ordering where two future_handles are equivalent if and
only if they both reference the same promise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk