220 4551 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Fernando Cacciola Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: N3558 :A standardized representation of Asynchronous operation Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:46:58 -0300 Lines: 140 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <519F9E48.7050700@wanadoo.fr> <519FB94F.7090703@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34f4043fb9004dd7c1208 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369424860 17360 80.91.229.3 (24 May 2013 19:47:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:47:40 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBXEH76GAKGQEHSN6UIY@isocpp.org Fri May 24 21:47:41 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f200.google.com ([209.85.212.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ufxxl-0000TX-Fw for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2013 21:47:41 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f200.google.com with SMTP id c10sf143041wiw.11 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=D5u8Y/9R7hBCx1oa1LlaVVPrGTEOxnmsfOph6016RSo=; b=Z+fzKAnq5ut5gnpz89kLJMv9VRTZ14gKfYcafbeMrEm2llnqmaY3CFUBBeIumaO6ZN HhpDrWDHVFzASxxsUHPZ6cv5BNuhbrJL5TXzUp6Ti/kpiWILdAC70I1U/o03ffOQeXem sU7G3/A8tVZtjxINAQPggECjbhZLbuoWgZgR7i6zZnVsx0kK+Y526ldJ5fLUDPCY1u5G zzpdZyowx9vWt6aR60VJRK/FmafSlcZB7XVg8IErxuYKImcI5PKILFM4aFqGjP4MmkH+ f/yRQaMRQstBZP4N0jQlVsj3hW4IyVWDf5jqAQCuKyGopxKnFo2scApzvJIEk4rNoacb +HpA== X-Received: by 10.112.154.41 with SMTP id vl9mr3381621lbb.19.1369424860788; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.2.65 with SMTP id 1ls135504las.33.gmail; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.158.131 with SMTP id wu3mr2351695lbb.116.1369424859145; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q7si5951174laq.185.2013.05.24.12.47.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.174; Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u10so4987462lbi.5 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.87.69 with SMTP id v5mr9721914laz.24.1369424858968; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.96.200 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <519FB94F.7090703@wanadoo.fr> X-Original-Sender: fernando.cacciola@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fernando.cacciola@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:4551 Archived-At: --001a11c34f4043fb9004dd7c1208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > Le 24/05/13 19:57, Xeo a =E9crit : > > On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:07:20 PM UTC+2, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> What is the rationale for when_all to return future>> >> instead of future>? >> > What is the rationale for when_any to return future>> >> instead of future> ? >> > > Likely, proper exception propagation for both. > > Oh, I see. No body has the need to get just: the vector of values when no > exception has been thrown or an exception when at least one exception has > been thrown? > > For `when_any`, it's also important that you get access to *all* passed > futures, not just the one that finished - this way, you don't have to kee= p > the vector around yourself. > > I understand what this solves. The drawback is that we need to to iterat= e > over the vector of futures when the when_any function could know about th= e > index of the future on the vector. > Returning future>>> would provide efficienc= y > and safety. > > What if you had more than one simultaneous result? --=20 Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/?hl=3Den. --001a11c34f4043fb9004dd7c1208 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, May 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <= ;vicente.bote= t@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Le 24/05/13 19:57, Xeo a =E9crit=A0:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:07:20 PM UTC+2, Vic= ente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi,

What is the rationale for when_all to return future<vector<future<R>>> instead of=A0 future<vector<R>>?
What is the rationale fo= r when_any to return future<vector<future<R>>> instead of future<pair<size_t, R>> ?

Likely, proper exception propagation for both.
Oh, I see. No body has the need to get just: the vector of values when no exception has been thrown or an exception when at least one exception has been thrown?

For `when_any`, it's also important that you get access to *all* passed futures, not just the one that finished - this way, you don't have to keep the vector around yourself.

I understand what this solves. The drawback is that we need to to iterate over the vector of futures when the when_any function could know about the index of the future on the vector.
Returning future<pair<size_t, vector<future<R>>>> would provide efficiency and safety.

What if you had more than one= simultaneous result?


--
Fernando = Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder
http://www.scisoft-consulting.com

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
--001a11c34f4043fb9004dd7c1208-- .