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
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.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk