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 06:33:28

> > 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)
> > {...}

no sure - probably not, but it's not that hard to add an BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT :)
 
> 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?

yes - the version in my git-repo uses allocators (std::allocator as default) in coroutines ctor (beside of the stack-allocator).

regards,
Oliver