Re: [boost] [coroutine2] Difference between coroutine and coroutine2

Subject: Re: [boost] [coroutine2] Difference between coroutine and coroutine2
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-23 04:44:30

On June 22, 2015 1:13:54 PM EDT, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Le 22/06/15 11:10, Rob Stewart a écrit :
> > On June 22, 2015 4:41:05 AM EDT, Oliver Kowalke
> <oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> 2015-06-22 10:29 GMT+02:00 Rob Stewart <rob.stewart_at_[hidden]>:
> >>
> >>> If there's only one kind of coroutine in coroutine2, why isn't it
> >> just
> >>> named "coroutine"?
> >> asymmetric_coroutine<> describes the coroutine type (assymetric
> >> transfer of
> >> execution control),
> > With only one kind, the documentation already describes how it
> behaves. Having asymmetric_coroutine suggests other variations are
> expected in the future.
> >
> >> but coroutine.hpp contains:
> >>
> >> template< typename T >
> >> using coroutine = asymmetric_coroutine< T >;
> >>
> >> so you could use coroutine<> if desired.
> > If you think asymmetric_coroutine is necessary, and clearly I do
> not, you should reverse those. That is, asymmetric_coroutine should be
> the alias.
> >
> I don't agree. asymmetric_coroutine is the correct term. This let us
> to add again symmetric_coroutine if the need comeback.

If that must remain a possibility, then there should be no "coroutine" alias and the header should be asymmetric_coroutine.hpp.

If symmetric_coroutine was removed for good reason, does that reason not preclude its return? I don't have that answer. I'm just inferring from the result.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)