Re: [boost] [coroutine][review] Very Late Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [coroutine][review] Very Late Review
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-18 21:20:28

Le 19/09/12 01:47, Giovanni Piero Deretta a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Eugene Yakubovich
> <eyakubovich_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Giovanni Piero Deretta
>>> It has been suggested that coroutine::self be removed an have a thread
>>> specific object. I strongly disagree with this option. First of all it
>> will
>>> make it too easy to break type safety:
>>>
>>> typedef this_coroutine<int(int)> this_coro;
>>>
>>> typedef this_coroutine<void()> that_coro;
>>>
>>> coroutine<int(int)>([]{
>>>         that_coro::yield(); // oops compiles fine, UB at runtime.
>>> });
>>>
>> This is a good point. I now think I'd prefer type safety here so I
>> agree that using a thread specific object is bad.
>>
>>
> Help me convince Oliver then ;).

Hi,

I didn't know that Oliver was for the thread specific object design.

I'm not sure the alternative I proposed is the best one. Compile type 
safety is too important to be lost. Unfortunately I don't have a 
solution that is type safe and that avoid to pass an additional 
parameter to the coroutine function.

Oliver, I don't know if you can take care of both alternatives, so that 
we can experiment with. If it is not the case, it seems that maintaing 
the self/caller parameter is safer. The thread specific design could 
always be built on top of actual design, isn't it?

Best,
Vicente