220 4553 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: N3558 :A standardized representation of Asynchronous operation Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:07:43 +0300 Lines: 55 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=001a11c1cffc0e703104dd7c5ae0 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369426067 29194 80.91.229.3 (24 May 2013 20:07:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:07:47 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBEER76GAKGQEIBGXIKA@isocpp.org Fri May 24 22:07:47 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com ([209.85.223.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UfyHB-0004zY-9x for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2013 22:07:45 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 10sf19426910ied.3 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:44 -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:date:message-id :subject:from: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=YobnKODVMsWhXAkf922Vl/EzhMQqvqzvmdLpQo4v1bI=; b=S4Y2S3POuy5vEFp++NouJ1XwPed5aKdyPxFXANeWJWN1fSNfzdhpWWLyNXUkQSomr+ V0W+pg365GFPOa/Fn2Zb1rUb754M48gftquXVL1AbVWtDKivlPeuO8ToM5p1zDYDYynx d5+z5UbSc0JDYQJvWtmiMo612xezxKqLg4XKw2/c9dsGOLw0vlDZU3Iok8u5GYSbvnf4 guXqNYFuJ60u6s1oZDROJ2pFfyn4Xc57Rgv3irsnLR6Q8piglxldA7lqh7RM/XZsmJQd ococuw/v+6t37tEzSzLEzIHJgyyPp6ei8bwNlsSeyn4FVGV4bpyFO1U5+xgvlNPR9Uu+ Q45g== X-Received: by 10.182.153.102 with SMTP id vf6mr5524793obb.13.1369426064337; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.42.231 with SMTP id r7ls1109475obl.23.gmail; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.124.18 with SMTP id me18mr12937328oeb.100.1369426063564; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com (mail-oa0-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zb4si11790998obb.170.2013.05.24.13.07.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.49; Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k14so6599567oag.22 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.29.169 with SMTP id l9mr10538696obh.73.1369426063419; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.131.170 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@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:4553 Archived-At: --001a11c1cffc0e703104dd7c5ae0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 24 May 2013 22:46, Fernando Cacciola wrote: > 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>>> would provide >> efficiency and safety. >> >> What if you had more than one simultaneous result? > > Then the size_t gives you the one that was noticed first, and the rest are still in the vector? -- --- 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 email 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-proposals/?hl=en. --001a11c1cffc0e703104dd7c5ae0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1



On 24 May 2013 22:46, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote:
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?


Then the size_t gives you the one that was noticed first, and the rest are still in the vector?

--
 
---
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 email 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-proposals/?hl=en.
 
 
--001a11c1cffc0e703104dd7c5ae0-- .