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: 2015-08-31 10:31:42

On 31 Aug 2015 at 12:10, Gavin Lambert wrote:

> > I'd live comfortably with what you just proposed. In fact, it was my
> > second preference API design after the one I chose. I felt originally
> > that making the end user write depends() all over the place would be
> > irritating, but maybe it's better to force the end user to always be
> > explicit about what operations relate to which others.
> 
> I think this might end up being a little cleaner, despite being more 
> verbose at first glance.  In theory then all the functions that accept 
> preconditions would just be very thin wrappers that simply "return 
> precondition.then(actual operation)" (or similar; I'm not sure if you 
> need an extra layer to cope with "depends" returning an unready future).
> 
> If the "actual operation" API were also public then this might also 
> satisfy the folks in the other thread that want to avoid having 
> precondition parameters at all.
> 
> Bear in mind that once coroutines or async/await are better established 
> in the language, it's likely that there would be no need for 
> precondition parameters as it would be simpler to attach continuations 
> at the top level.

I think I can make the above work well.

Niall

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