220 9100 <2bcb57a2-f98d-4468-b908-7775caef15e0@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Agust=C3=ADn_K-ballo_Berg=C3=A9?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Async variant of N3784 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:08:46 -0800 (PST) Lines: 102 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <2bcb57a2-f98d-4468-b908-7775caef15e0@isocpp.org> References: <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_539_22421895.1391616526638" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391616523 2304 80.91.229.3 (5 Feb 2014 16:08:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lcidfire@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCJ4ZKOW3QCRBD6EZGLQKGQELM65ZXQ@isocpp.org Wed Feb 05 17:08:51 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com ([209.85.214.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WB51t-0007T5-0z for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:08:49 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id gq1sf2826398obb.4 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:08:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references: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=Y8b4CwXpLe7UrqypuWXKpk2Q2c7Y76Y4OBXakG8tR+o=; b=OxqouocDJpPwVkpyxDFxFVf3uKMI001iw4MMhhBCaJy+ln0BWghrkAgY+XcKSr69KL f2ew5JP6HRprgGBTqPqpAZ/UXHtDZQvOy/L6x+NIZP9LG6ZuCrKvOA9Kqhr6c1ZmQKhQ d6RgPRCdkvfYnMqgwv6zayWHCJ0BMixaCG112BxBTajgGZNYcbm2GwuPuTG9jV1Jz/o4 AQmLzSjKNEcKpUSj+cFEDPUDNYiSi00K+gMyouNcjdXYsNyljjKIDh5qGWfzBAvhteH6 8EC6SWuaKpmQWDntiEeNeVGzV0+i8sE422WBBjq1f5spDrbTBqo51PoMyF0j/EW4Ak2X XIlQ== 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:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references: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=Y8b4CwXpLe7UrqypuWXKpk2Q2c7Y76Y4OBXakG8tR+o=; b=eO2sGdTaivaYQ2uHWSfOC9JMh7uNMOTbjTGcO1j31ieDKINSHd8DukaeOP6TABV/CC Pp68sPE7kMxJSrWTTBq3g3zIB0bNRLBt96596gJJKB4SLv1Ry7Ga5uz+DSvjbyUWl2Up utwQpJrcyYtkX8Qy5wNcn39TB4436QEV83jYhkxVVzZo+dD80bJJq3z8YIUF8SkYDKTJ ihrGmbo2d8Aj4o/Xhr8SRpM+hY2yugwqynGdW74hvY2Lm1JgrC5OaPSekEfTdR9jrdC7 c/z+Gyy6i+naPPZSGyJy8OkkNyLp029u5JOFdpgEcJSMrDmLddqtToT9bL3Qr1kor6rk gIow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl8TIR2DC1bkehQOJREbMGTrLo9vuh0b5oAZUK+nmyxcWoE5hEielMZt/YqAWZa6XHTXFOE X-Received: by 10.182.111.227 with SMTP id il3mr848017obb.41.1391616528031; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:08:48 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.46.134 with SMTP id v6ls60916obm.50.gmail; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:08:47 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.84.199 with SMTP id b7mr18009obz.13.1391616527420; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:08:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <535ebb45-8fe4-408f-b042-462b212854e7@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: kaballo@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:9100 Archived-At: ------=_Part_539_22421895.1391616526638 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Monday, February 3, 2014 7:12:45 AM UTC-6, lcid...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. > > Could you elaborate on those situations? What does it mean that a "future" cannot be accessed synchronously? What would happen if I did access that "future" 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. > > Would you care to provide more detail about this "continuator"? I assume it doesn't have `wait` either, but that's just me guessing... > 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 hardly explained which scenario is that. Why don't you start by explaining your scenario, the problems a regular future would present, and how your "continuation" fix them first? -- --- 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_539_22421895.1391616526638 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Monday, February 3, 2014 7:12:45 AM UTC-6, lcid...@gmai= l.com wrote:
W= hile implementing parts of N3784 with libc++, I encountered the situation, = that I wanted to return a "future" from a function, that can NOT be accesse= d synchronously.


Could you elabor= ate on those situations? What does it mean that a "future" cannot be access= ed synchronously? What would happen if I did access that "future" synchrono= usly?
 
I now thought about adding the following two funct= ions:

template< class Type >
continuator async_cast(std::future<Type> fut) noexcept;
	
templa=
te< class Type >
shared_continuator async_cast(std::shared_future&l=
t;Type> fut) noexcept;
<=
br>
The difference for th=
e continuator is, that it does not have a blocking get and only works asynchronously.

Would= you care to provide more detail about this "continuator"? I assume it does= n't have `wait` either, but that's just me guessing...
 
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 hardly explained which scenario i= s that. Why don't you start by explaining your scenario, the problems a reg= ular future would present, and how your "continuation" fix them first?
=

--
 
---
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_539_22421895.1391616526638-- .