Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 23:29:56

On 28 Aug 2015 at 12:00, Gavin Lambert wrote:

> I think Niall's point is that it's harder for the wrapper to know 
> whether it's going to be called a single time or multiple times for a 
> given precondition future, so it's safest if that is accepted only as a 
> shared_future.

It's more that when shared_future can only EVER refer to a 
shared_ptr<afio::handle> all of which is thread safe, I see little 
risk to defaulting to shared_future. What does one lose?

> I suppose arguably the wrappers could be templated to accept either 
> future or shared_future, which might mitigate that.  But perhaps there 
> are reasons why that's undesirable as well.

The wrappers can do either without a problem because in 
Boost.Monad/Outcome an extension allows consuming futures to accept 
any number of continuations. So from my perspective, it's six of one 
and half a dozen of the other from an implementation viewpoint. The 
real question is which makes for a better library use experience, and 
just because a design "should" be some way or other just because 
theory says so and you are wilfully ignorant of the problem domain 
being solved isn't useful to me.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/