On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Szymon Gatner
2013/2/8 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
: This looks like an error in the future_traits<T>::init overload
set...it's
missing an overload that a T const & can bind to (in the second argument).
Also, I think it would be an improvement if set_value_at_thread_exit was able to catch rvalues as emulated rvalue references (when true rvalue references are unavailable) rather than as lvalue-reference-to-const.
Yes indeed, there is an overload resolution ambiguity.
Strictly speaking, it isn't an ambiguity that's causing the compiler failure, it's that the eligible overload set is empty. I guess movable
/ emulation stuff in Thread is more difficult to manage since it maintains 2 move emulations (original one from Thread and Move).
Yes :( I can imagine the maintenance nightmare for Vicente. Move
already provides BOOST_RV_REF(T) macro which is T&& on compiler that support it and rv<T>& when emulating and this imho is the argument type future_traits<T>::init() should use to disambiguate.
Ideally, but the present implementation of set_value_at_thread_exit precludes init capturing by rvalue reference, AFAICT.
Is the original move emulation even still needed in Thread code.
I think there are subtle differences, perhaps not all of which have been worked out or discovered yet. It
seems like half on BOOST_THREAD macros try to deal with move semantics.
- Jeff