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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review.Coroutine] More comments, questions and suggestions
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-11 06:14:17

Oliver Kowalke wrote
> 
>> 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)
> {...}
> 

Does the current implementation check at compile time that the return type
of the coroutine function is the one of the signature?

>> 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).
> 

Yes. It is a bad idea to mix them. I don't remember if you plan to add
standard allocator or not. Could you confirm?

Best,
Vicente

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Review-Coroutine-More-comments-questions-and-suggestions-tp4635518p4635588.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.