On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess@nist.gov> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 19 May 2008 10:05 am, Anthony Williams wrote:
"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis@gmail.com> writes:
Right now, having futures non-default constructable makes it hard(er) to put them in standard containers.
The futures in my proposal can be default-constructed. unique_future requires a move-aware container, but shared_future should be usable in any container.
Turns out the Gaskill future is also default constructible, according to its docs. Where did the idea they neither were default constructible come from?
My bad. I was thinking more about the "validity" of default constructed futures that don't have an associated promise. I was under the impression that there wasn't a way to create a future without an existing promise object. So something like: future<int>(); Would introduce an either invalid future whose value could not ever be set through an associated promise. -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.