220 4555 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 17:19:55 -0300 Lines: 130 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=14dae93d8eac19a04c04dd7c88cc X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369426836 5520 80.91.229.3 (24 May 2013 20:20:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:20:36 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBFEX76GAKGQEHJIZLHY@isocpp.org Fri May 24 22:20:38 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f197.google.com ([209.85.212.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UfyTd-0004uU-5o for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2013 22:20:37 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f197.google.com with SMTP id hq7sf161592wib.8 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -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=hyWSwQ/191zoVIbbAl5OmMQnwV0+xW+z7ErZlSRjg8M=; b=oWkkH8X8gYtlNrQ/yjiLcdJWHu3loAWZB9hLXxdHfTqm/5yiU7XVm1fPetjCA28q+M qRLQLx3V1J9DTjPckFkEh2LE+kUFC3RpV5mZO3lAsUlRUadH+Rn4wYga4YWiI7FBO448 FSx+yD5VffwM5MTYi4mlPnn2qTjUjyGJB4TJtDZzWuVUMgzzXeiwJYDh8EY/WZkumarZ 0BmpMZ/Gwc4vyHn/bTGlmMFe96TKCEbR5AkzIAnmqfSAzdri2zfw1HTWQ01UgPkZmbOo TDzMbQOPhXyMC/Gpt3onFfonw5jEyFt7uQicrLGho0Gh13NU4qcgmjxlzqFSzdwvjl0i 1GtQ== X-Received: by 10.152.2.10 with SMTP id 10mr3281008laq.2.1369426836819; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.5.33 with SMTP id p1ls54626lap.98.gmail; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.171.202 with SMTP id aw10mr9644465lbc.32.1369426836093; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pm6si6092683lbb.129.2013.05.24.13.20.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e; Original-Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id er20so4908322lab.33 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.73.135 with SMTP id l7mr9732672lbv.42.1369426835904; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.96.200 with HTTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:19:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e 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:4555 Archived-At: --14dae93d8eac19a04c04dd7c88cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Fernando Cacciola < fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Ville Voutilainen < > ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> But you would not know if you got just one result, so you would > nonetheless scan the whole vector just the same. > > future,vector>>> would fix that, but it's > getting complex. > > Scratch that. The implementation would notice *only one* first so it can return that one right away (and like you said the rest are still in the vector) - Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com -- --- 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. --14dae93d8eac19a04c04dd7c88cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, May 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciol= a@gmail.com> wrote:
=
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:07 P= M, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>= wrote:



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 th= an one simultaneous result?
=


Then the s= ize_t gives you the one that was noticed first, and the rest are still in t= he vector?

But you = would not know if you got just one result, so you would nonetheless scan th= e whole vector just the same.

future<pair<vector<size_t>,vector<future<R= >>>> would fix that, but it's getting complex.

Scratch that.

The implementation would notice *only one* = first so it can return that one right away (and like you said the rest are = still in the vector)

-
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.
 
 
--14dae93d8eac19a04c04dd7c88cc-- .