Subject: Re: [boost] Futures
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-05 08:41:15
> > > I'm really happy about this discussion here. Can you clarify what you
> > > by a future being type erased? You don't mean to say a future is a
> > > future<any>, do you?
> > Presumably that the type of the future does not contain the type of the
> > callable function object it contains, thus requiring dynamic memory
> > allocation and indirection.
> An interesting mind binder is if one makes ASIO's async_result
> vtabled i.e. a listener class.
> That would make async_result ABI stable, and eliminate most of the
> rationale for improving futures, arguably even the present approach
> by Microsoft and the committee on how to do resumable functions.
> I am personally surprised that Chris hasn't proposed this yet in one
> of this N-papers proposing the ASIO way of doing async instead of the
> current approach by the committee :)
Again, I don't see the 'current way' and 'Chris' way' as contradicting. They
are orthogonal and address different things.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk