Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 05:21:19
Le 26/05/2017 à 00:58, Gavin Lambert via Boost a écrit :
> On 25/05/2017 22:08, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Le 25/05/2017 à 01:24, Gavin Lambert a écrit :
>>> On 25/05/2017 08:44, Jonathan Müller wrote:
>>>> What about providing no default constructor? There are two valid
>>>> choices so why surprise half the users?
>>>> Yes, it makes it a bit harder to use in arrays, but how often would
>>>> it need to be stored in arrays anyways.
>>> Surprisingly often, if it ends up being used to represent the
>>> collection of results from methods executed in sequence or in
>>> parallel (although perhaps future<> is more suited to that task,
>>> since they're more likely to be asynchronous).
>> I need to store a collection of results even if the tasks are not
>> executed concurrently. Not all application need the complexity of
> Which is why I included "in sequence".
My bad. I missed the word or mixed sequence and collection :(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk