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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-05 20:17:59

Le 05/09/15 06:15, Agustín K-ballo Bergé a écrit :
> On 9/4/2015 11:10 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>> 2015-09-04 21:36 GMT+02:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé 
>> <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:
>>
>>>
>>> What additional indirections would deriving from a base class 
>>> introduce?
>>>
>>
>> depends on the inheritance type
>>
>> - private inheritance from helper == 'implemented-n-terms-of': 
>> functions of
>> helper are not part of the public interface (future/promise has to 
>> invoke
>> helper functions internally)
>
> That's not entirely truthful:
>
>     struct base {
>       void foo();
>       void bar();
>     };
>
>     struct derived : private base {
>       using base::bar; // bar is part of the public interface now
>     };
>
>     derived d;
>     d.foo(); // error, foo is private
>     d.bar(); // fine
>
>> - public inheritance from helper == 'is-a': functions of helper are 
>> part of
>> the public interface, but I don't like to track a future as the same 
>> as a
>> promise (or packaged_task)
I don't think Agustin is asking for this kind of inheritance. I believe 
that it is talking to the common part of future<T>, future<T&> and 
future<void>, and the samefor promise.
>>    => void foo( helper &) could be called for future and promise
>
> I fail to see how this is relevant. You'd have `future_base`, 
> `promise_base`, etc. There is no "tracking" issue in sight.
>
>> so I believe using template specializationonly is reasonable
>
> No, sorry, that's just unreasonable; it goes against some pretty 
> fundamental design principles. I must have failed to explain myself 
> correctly, please don't hesitate to keep asking if I am unclear.
>
>
Vicente