Subject: Re: [boost] [compute] Some remarks
From: Gruenke,Matt (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-01 19:03:37
From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Thomas Heller
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 13:56
Subject: [boost] [compute] Some remarks
> Additionally, I think that the author and other reviewers are running in
> circles when it comes to synchronization. IMHO, the event alone is enough
> and perfectly fine.
It's true that the library could have been designed to rely solely on events. All operations could accept wait_lists and return either an event or a wait_list (for those algorithms with multiple outputs).
Since it wasn't done in that way (and I don't mean to imply any judgment, here; I recognize there are benefits to the current design), we're in a position of looking to plug holes in the existing design to enable full exception safety and reduce the set of usage errors that can occur.
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk