Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [coroutine] new versions
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-05 18:32:28

Am 06.10.2012 00:20, schrieb Vicente J. Botet Escriba:
> Le 05/10/12 21:46, Oliver Kowalke a écrit :
>> Am 05.10.2012 21:27, schrieb Vicente J. Botet Escriba:
>>> The single difference between both interfaces is that with fist the
>>> return is obtained using yield, while in the second is using the
>>> operator().
>> the main difference between version 1 and 2 is that self_t is not a
>> coroutine<> it is a different type.
> I don't think the caller should be taken as a coroutine, as it could
> not be one.

it was one suggestion from Giovanni and Eugene and as Giovanni - I'm
undecided which version would be better

>> Version 2 was suggested by Giovanni and Eugene - especially Eugene
>> has provided an example demonstrating the benefit of version 2:
>>> I prefer to use yield to return a result and the call operator to
>>> call to a coroutine.
>> because slef_t is not of type coroutine<> I expressed the context
>> jump function as 'yield()' instead of operator()
>>> It is not enough clear to me what are the advantages of having a
>>> inversed coroutine as parameter.
>> If you use symmetric coroutines - see example above
> Symmetric coroutines are a different thing than your caller_t type,
> even if the caller is a coroutine. Symmetric coroutines lets the
> called coroutine to yield in place of the calling one. I don't see how
> this inversion helps to achieve symmetric coroutines. I should be
> missing something basic. Of course, I'm completely for the addition of
> symmetric coroutines.

missunderstanding I'm mean 'symmetric' in the sense of symmetric
signature - take a look at Eugene's examples

I need some input which version should be used for further development


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