Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] pipelines questions
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-01 11:50:46

On 1 Mar 2014 at 16:32, Thaler Benedek wrote:

> pipeline::execution task(
> pipeline::from(filenames) |
> pipeline::parallel(read_file | grep_fn | vgrep_fn | sed_fn, 8) |
> output_queue).run(&thread_pool);

If you're going down the road of adding pipelined i/o, do look into
proposed Boost.AFIO which already implements chainable asynchronous
file i/o for you. Should save you a ton of work.

Failing that, Boost.Iostreams also provides a huge amount of
chainable i/o implementation already written and tested.
Boost.Iostreams can't do async easily though.

> I can't figure out how to create a segment from "read_file | grep_fn |
> vgrep_fn | sed_fn" without overloading the free function
> operator|(function, function). Is this really we want to do? Shouldn't we
> use pipeline::make() here?

I would look at Google's proposal as merely a suggestion. Microsoft
have their own proposals for (mis)using the C++ operator syntax as a
DSL for specifying asynchronous operations. Just because Google
proposed it doesn't mean it's special.

You're right that overloading global functions is generally to be
avoided unless you absolutely control the implementation of the types
entering the global function. I personally think that the
"Improvements to future<T>" proposal is far safer and much more
likely to get standardised.


Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland.
Work Portfolio:

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