Boost logo

Boost :

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 ;).


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?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at