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

Subject: Re: [boost] [coroutine][review] Very Late Review
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-19 17:03:57

Am 19.09.2012 18:18, schrieb Giovanni Piero Deretta:
> well, if I read your discussion with Vicente correctly,you are 
> planning to add either a bind or a get method to self to bind 
> parameters. For simmetry the same solution should be used for the 
> coroutine itself, especially if I get to convince you to use the same 
> class template for both the coroutine and the self object.

> by tweaking the implementation the coroutine_self type and the 
> coroutine wouldn't need to share anything. HTH, 

I'm uncertain if coroutine<> or self_t should be the first param of 
coroutine-fn. At least I want to implement  Vicente's idea of updating 
the coroutine-fn parameters after each yield().

I believe your suggestion of passing a coroutine<> with 'inverted' 
signature will not be compatible if the coroutine-fn has more than one 
parameter. How would the signature of the coroutine (first parameter in 
fn instead of self_t) look like?

maybe the first parameter is a factory?

typedef coroutine< int( int, string &) > coro_t;

int f( coro_t::self_t & self, int x, string & s) {
   coroutine< ? > coro = self.bind( x, s);
   // x == 3, s == "abc"
   coro( 7);
   // x == 11, s == "xyz"
  reutnr -1;
}

coro_t coro( f);
int res = coro( 3, "abc");
res = coro( 11, "xyz");

I want to force the user to call bind() (memebr of some special class?) 
to provide the address of the parameters
and return an object (coroutine<>?) used for yielding the coroutine-fn.

Oliver