220 21228 <401aa118-ed0b-4c7b-92cf-3fbd706eff9d@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Resumable expressions p0114r0 vs async/await P0057R0 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 06:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 114 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <401aa118-ed0b-4c7b-92cf-3fbd706eff9d@isocpp.org> References: <639f0012-8cb4-4db3-82a6-8d042a3497f9@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1774_1046105529.1443880638336" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443880652 5166 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 13:57:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:57:32 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBP55X6YAKGQEWR2PPRQ@isocpp.org Sat Oct 03 15:57:22 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-io0-f198.google.com ([209.85.223.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiNJR-0001FF-RF for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:57:22 +0200 Original-Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6sf212480025ioi.2 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 06:57:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=FrMlyZ4XQZPgDZcmTEG927hVJ1KouyKgksplOSpZa3Y=; b=lYKsLRL9dApcYeSadJUrTllH44Z/ZAKIBz1eW8VuNYcqa4XwrUSWVjWHCxXreSy25Q E/G4JRcNjpVxbee2rZP+2PS8PTWjEo0pN0m7qMCDH4383hfKGRppCdWCTtD7SysGE44f ihTwQHXNvuM4E5hr9LhFVZBn2aBiTLgtlCZqYhAsd9oxFZ508pGyzEqdlG+/+no+mh4/ 884f++ZjmwVUF1aXfGrvW7XE1TYrLjqf3NYOnAfTY6D4KMtaM0DJmpqH4Js63TpWNw5D eD0mRp0/xITiupOjPEn5mcD/INZkZh6Y5o5ZJWnPfTMf0X3sQf/qxQZmMS5n7ioVwIUu R5OA== 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:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=FrMlyZ4XQZPgDZcmTEG927hVJ1KouyKgksplOSpZa3Y=; b=kFH75u8LqmLvIiArcSi2Vb9QIywEr53krO/60d5zspB72rYUEW2QNHZlyU1UjsIPG+ 9iCEqRCgSuu/XQHieOF6QhLtIZmYtUE5Mo2D7FdZ6ohY/vhPL5k+0sQ7mr8urnSahPql KQ2TcEVf9dUmlTwKfx4hCth157y8syX9rrfRIKDqQk9ifobscXu7zi6A9UN3k2FqCVe8 NQmkWdna880sMVBOlcvvGHNJF0ZzIHKKIyT9HNN0UXlIj3zw1wn4D7JNwedSNcePm56G Z4lChwm2Rjefz2onfqRJP/5qyv6IOaA7LxrLt7ybMTSdVwlRMPeagV6AnuKVN/GNLLML O0Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTjm7NssUoCIzt9esuBdGlK2K05UXvJ9XybiE+txj8TtLkaxOgi3zIXr0Af+Nd2cX30FYO X-Received: by 10.50.114.2 with SMTP id jc2mr3747029igb.5.1443880640580; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 06:57:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.57.71 with SMTP id g7ls847170igq.21.canary; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 06:57:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.4.70 with SMTP id i6mr20468igi.12.1443880639587; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 06:57:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <639f0012-8cb4-4db3-82a6-8d042a3497f9@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org 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:21228 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1774_1046105529.1443880638336 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1775_507360727.1443880638336" ------=_Part_1775_507360727.1443880638336 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:41:18 AM UTC-4, Germ=C3=A1n Diago wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I do not mean to start a flame here, but I am still wondering why the=20 > coroutines from > P0057R0 are still being considered. > > For what it is worth, I find the paper from Christopher Kohlhoff very=20 > clarifying, very well > reasoned, and providing alternatives for all the important use cases from= =20 > P0057R0 with > superior implementations. > I am in no way deeply familiar with either of these two proposals. However,= =20 after skimming P0114, one thing seems very clear: P0057 is *much* farther= =20 along, in terms of actually creating an implementable standard. The P0057 paper itself is actual wording, ready to be incorporated into the= =20 standard. Not only that, P0057 has actual, *live* implementation experience= =20 behind it. You can go get VS2015 right now and play with their=20 implementation of a version of this functionality=20 .. P0114 seems more... experimental. It sounds like something that has been=20 discussed to some degree, but is as of yet lacking a proof-of-concept=20 implementation. A lot is said about how it would be "possible" to implement= =20 some particular facet under their new rules. But the paper never claims=20 that they've taken Clang or GCC or whatever and actually implemented it. That's not to say that P0114 is dead and all effort should be focused on=20 P0057. But however much you may find P0114 to be technically superior,=20 P0057 has *earned* the right to be considered. --=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/. ------=_Part_1775_507360727.1443880638336 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:41:18 AM UTC-4, = Germ=C3=A1n Diago wrote:
Hello everyone,

I do not mean to start a flam= e here, but I am still wondering why the coroutines from
P0057R0 = are still being considered.

For what it is worth, = I find the paper from Christopher Kohlhoff very clarifying, very well
=
reasoned, and providing alternatives for all the important use cases f= rom P0057R0 with
superior implementations.

I am in no way deeply familiar with either of these two proposal= s. However, after skimming P0114, one thing seems very clear: P0057 is m= uch farther along, in terms of actually creating an implementable stand= ard.

The P0057 paper itself is actual wording, ready to be incorpora= ted into the standard. Not only that, P0057 has actual, live impleme= ntation experience behind it. You can go get VS2015 right now and play with their implementation of a version of this functionalit= y.

P0114 seems more... experimental. It sounds like something th= at has been discussed to some degree, but is as of yet lacking a proof-of-c= oncept implementation. A lot is said about how it would be "possible&q= uot; to implement some particular facet under their new rules. But the pape= r never claims that they've taken Clang or GCC or whatever and actually= implemented it.

That's not to say that P0114 is dead and all ef= fort should be focused on P0057. But however much you may find P0114 to be = technically superior, P0057 has earned the right to be considered.

--

---
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-proposa= ls+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_1775_507360727.1443880638336-- ------=_Part_1774_1046105529.1443880638336-- .