Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-05 09:04:54

On 9/4/2015 11:12 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> 2015-09-04 22:18 GMT+02:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:
>
>> On 9/4/2015 5:04 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-09-04 21:35 GMT+02:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:
>>>
>>> Here is the standard definition of `future::wait_until`:
>>>>
>>>>       template <class Clock, class Duration>
>>>>       future_status wait_until(chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration> const&
>>>> abs_time) const;
>>>>
>>>> Note how it takes *any* time point, and automatically deduces template
>>>> arguments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I use this pattern in the other classes too (for instance
>>> condition::wait_until())
>>>
>>>
>> Is there anything particular about `future` and `shared_future` that
>> prevents you from doing it correctly for them too?
>>
>
> no, it is fixed in branch develop - I missed to fix it as I changed the
> chrono related code in the other classes
>

That's good to know. Moving on, I tried to peek at the implementation to 
see if you meet the standard required timing specifications (30.2.4 
Timing specifications [thread.req.timing]). You don't seem to meet any 
of them. I cannot go into detail at this time, but I'll try to summarize 
it in my final review.

Regards,
-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com