220 9017 <535ebb45-8fe4-408f-b042-462b212854e7@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: lcidfire@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Async variant of N3784 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:12:45 -0800 (PST) Lines: 71 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <535ebb45-8fe4-408f-b042-462b212854e7@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2438_4765619.1391433165610" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391433166 18523 80.91.229.3 (3 Feb 2014 13:12:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:12:46 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDQNNZXYSYDRBT5LX2LQKGQEPD7LMSI@isocpp.org Mon Feb 03 14:12:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.219.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WAJKT-0001KS-Jr for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 14:12:49 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id g12sf30760016oah.10 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:12:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=01ttjOd4/q+ird+nPQbrWcEPmoJeKktw9Vxy9UuZ1GY=; b=tkVxKLWK7gU7l5/N8NgB0LwLjyvU+Tl3W74LELKMKAqVMi3KmSlFl/+Fu4uyvd3R0W VLw/G3L4B5aOG/wJvxNq3bdnnykK11eTQGcImKyNY5FS4SWIhu8ywRXLHGcTXZJ54W/M XyWhX9TWHqxssLmL0ErhDcZYXQTP1kln7BVup1bx1XscjhClHFhcEgelpIZpCsaIUUXF P0zy7ofRvPRoriVGefHWvW/UYOFy3sXqpIw2+9WtLVbe9eSmIzUhwJR9q+Ft4evLWsLP OZCrEfk73G8IrT9RBSZKb477yQqgDBHfZoW6oy1YNP0TkPy630+yCWr8UVNPLp7lu4M5 bNEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=01ttjOd4/q+ird+nPQbrWcEPmoJeKktw9Vxy9UuZ1GY=; b=T+FLss5Ll/hzp9GG69iennCYL8V35GNrHlWqS0xq5MIQLGGwwlpy2gY4+T7+B8jqzF nidmxjTnC+OeJTKpJKjUYmjUKjw+K4ySgUZSNRMZAnuCt7GJJGC01MFQpvhTFmnMQKul W73htLRVAKgt6Me9wpySnaS9sx9T6zsK6g/8X2tf1LGUlvH1HnVz7sqQ9FxKeT4haKZW 4C0n6JDbg6Qt8IRkeZNZovjf+9eFDtl/a98IlZlSGBAGkch497Kokz+rcekj7dDPkC7S Tq5j+oRugue27qNVxReoSa7jOgOKo7bYGNbI/peNJmRpPfjzeeOmlNjGWRg5g/h8pzd3 3DzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0m23Vr2EvWUBBCIgazHZ+Dl11DriAd9vHhnn5uh+p4jmpkdGyWmWzDxyXFBRk2InTzwwr X-Received: by 10.50.33.47 with SMTP id o15mr5850539igi.0.1391433168569; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:12:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.117.66 with SMTP id kc2ls2024246igb.10.gmail; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.85.81 with SMTP id f17mr101429igz.12.1391433167197; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Sender: lcidfire@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:9017 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2438_4765619.1391433165610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 While implementing parts of N3784 with libc++, I encountered the situation, that I wanted to return a "future" from a function, that can NOT be accessed synchronously. I now thought about adding the following two functions: template< class Type > continuator async_cast(std::future fut) noexcept; template< class Type > shared_continuator async_cast(std::shared_future fut) noexcept; The difference for the continuator is, that it does not have a blocking get and only works asynchronously. The question is whether this is a common scenario. And if such a continuator is added, whether it would make sense to composite the future classes out of a continuator. -- --- 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/. ------=_Part_2438_4765619.1391433165610 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While implementing parts of N3784 with libc++, I encounter= ed the situation, that I wanted to return a "future" from a function, that = can NOT be accessed synchronously.

I now thought about a= dding the following two functions:

temp=
late< class Type >
cont=
inuator async_cast(std::future<Type> fut) noexcept;
	
template< class Type >
shared_continuator async_cast(std::shared_future<Type> fut) noexc=
ept;

The difference for the continuator is, that =
it does not have a blocking get a=
nd only works asynchronously.
The question is whether this is a common scenario. And if such a c=
ontinuator is added, whether it would make sense to composite the future cl=
asses out of a continuator.

--
 
---
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-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_2438_4765619.1391433165610-- .