Re: [boost] [c++std-parallel-2020] Re: We need a coherent higher level parallelization story for C++ (was [thread] Is there a non-blocking future-destructor?)

Subject: Re: [boost] [c++std-parallel-2020] Re: We need a coherent higher level parallelization story for C++ (was [thread] Is there a non-blocking future-destructor?)
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-14 10:57:38

Lawrence Crowl wrote:

> Third, extending the use of std::future beyond its design goals caused 
> problems.  You would expect this of any system used beyond its goals. In 
> particular, using std::futures for anything other than std::async was a 
> step too far.

This is absolutely backwards. Future was always intended to be used as a 
generic future value. Hence the name, and the existence of 'promise'. 
Extending it beyond these design goals in order to imbue it with a lifetime 
management function caused the problems.