Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call themonadicreturntype?
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 02:25:23
On 26 May 2015 12:59 am, "Peter Dimov" <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> This non-allocating implementation is an interesting argument in favor of
the current "unique future", which I've long disliked. I prefer futures to
Interesting, why do you dislike the unique future design? A shared future
pretty much requires holding a shared pointer and needs heavy weight
synchronisation ( a muted+condvar or equivalent). On the other hand a
unique future need no internal mutual exclusion and the only
synchronisation is needed for the handoff between producer and consumer;
the reference count is implicit (just have the consumer always deallocate
the object). The implementation can be significantly more light weight.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk