On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:25:27 -0400, "Frank Mori Hess" <frank.hess@nist.gov> said:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 12 March 2007 17:12 pm, Braddock Gaskill wrote:
A weakness in the future<> concept, as I understand it, is that if a future is never set(), then the invoking thread can hang waiting for it. Not very RAII.
The situation is much improved if future<T> and promise<T> are split, and promise<T> is reference counted. If the last promise<T> for a particular future<T> goes out of scope, than any thread waiting on the matching future<T> would be failed with a promise_broken exception or somesuch.
Is this already part of the promise<T> concept?
No, at least it wasn't in the code Chris posted. I like the idea though, thanks. I'm going to incorporate it into my code.
I agree, it's an excellent idea. I think it would be more idiomatic to name the exception "broken_promise" though :) Cheers, Chris