Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-09 11:15:33

2014/1/9 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>

> boost::thread has a constructor taking attributes too, this is the first
> argument so there would  be no collision.

This should be adjusted not only to be coherent with boost::thread, but
> also to implement the general constructor since matching the same semantics
> otherwise is tricky. Consider:
>
>     boost::fiber fib{
>       [f = std::move(f), a0 = std::move(a0), ...]() mutable
>       {
>           std::move(f)(std::move(a0), ...);
>       };
>     }
>
> against the standard conformant constructor with the same semantics:
>
>     boost::fiber fib{std::move(f), std::move(a0), ...};

OK - agreed, it should be too complicated to add it

> I understand the perceived convenience of semantic sugar, to me it is an
> unnecessary divergence from std/boost::thread.

However, I can always avoid their use completely.

it could be removed but if found it useful in the case of fiber-stealing,
e.g.

boost::fibers::fiber f( other_rr->steal_from() );if ( f) {
    // migrate stolen fiber to scheduler running in this thread
    rr.migrate_to( f);
    ...
 }

 of course, I could let steal_from() return a bool

Please add reference documentation for fiber::id.
>

OK

>
>  - There is no indication whether the futures support void (I assume they
>>> do) and R& (I assume they don't).
>>>
>>
>>
>> future supports future< R >, future< R & >, future< void > - the problem
>> was how to express it in a comfortable way in the docu
>>
>>  - The documentation for promise doesn't seem to support void, it is
>>> unclear whether they support references. Another explicit operator bool.
>>>
>>>
>> promise supports promise< R >, promise< R& >, promise< void > -
>> suggestions
>> how to write the docu without repreating the interface for the
>> specializations?
>>
>>
> Refer to the standard for a concise definition of future/promise. It
> basically defines the specializations only when they differ.

I've had tried something like
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/futurebut I wasn't satisfied
with the result from quickbook-generated
html. I'll follow your advice.