Re: [boost] [Review.Coroutine] More comments, questions and suggestions

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review.Coroutine] More comments, questions and suggestions
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-11 03:08:03

> BTW,  I understand that the following coroutine returns twice, but it is 
> a little bit obscure, as there are two ways to return a value from a 
> coroutine.
> 
> int f( coro_ref::self_t & self, int a)
> {
>      return self.yield( a);
> }
> 
> LUA follows the same schema, but I don't share it. I you adopt the same 
> design as generators there will be no possible confusion. Only one way 
> to yield a value.
> 
> What do others think?

It is possible to implement it but I've concerns because the coroutine-fn has another signature/return type as the signature given to coroutine as template argument. It might confuse users.

typedef coroutine< int( int) > coro_t;

void fn( coro_t::self_t&, int)
{...}

> Sorry. I believed you had reached to mix them. Maybe you could reach to 
> make a StackAllocator model a standard allocator just by renaming the 
> stack allocator functions.

standard-allocator requires functions like deallocate/destory allocate/create.

stack-allocators do not construct objects the allocate/deallocate only memory chunks. I believe those are two different concepts (beside the special requirements of stack-allocators on the return address of the allocated chunk).

Oliver