Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-23 01:13:35

On 07/22/2015 06:40 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2015 at 15:16, Michael Caisse wrote:
>> On 07/22/2015 09:01 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>> Futures gives you the option of monadic programming, and they enforce
>>> strict operation ordering very succintly. They are the right choice
>>> for file i/o, just as async_result is the right choice for network
>>> i/o.
>> Is there somewhere in the documentation/rational that you explain this
>> (right choice) comparison further?
> There once was, but I deleted it as it generated emails to me telling
> me why I was wrong :)
> I don't mind restoring such a section now that I have lightweight
> futures which do I think address most of the problems that the
> async_result camp have with futures. Do you think I should
> incorporate this rationale into the design rationale, the tutorial,
> or the FAQ?

I personally do not think you need to restore the section. Some people
find the async_result clumsy. Some people think it is elegant. I
personally like the async_result interface and find it far more
flexible; however, I can work with a future interface just fine.

You have mentioned a couple times that futures is the right choice for
file I/O and async_result is the right choice for network I/O. I haven't
really thought too much about it but I have some ideas on why you might
state that. I know you have thought about this problem domain a lot and
was interested in how/why you came to that conclusion.


Michael Caisse
ciere consulting

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