-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 15 March 2007 23:30 pm, Braddock Gaskill wrote:
There is no future "proxying" or "chaining" of futures, per se, instead all future references point to the same implementation object under the hood, but do abstract the actual retrieval of the value. The effect is largely the same.
Is this an implementation detail, or does it change the semantics? For example, if I the class A is convertible to B and B is convertible to C, but A is not directly convertible to C, can I get a future<C> from a future<A> by going through a future<B> as an intermediary? Or would it try (and fail) to convert the A value directly to a C value? - -- Frank -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+pvx5vihyNWuA4URAsKIAKDgi9ekzMWX3+znwUPbNG3jT0c/tACcDvnn L9nZ2nRIBZHC3gNIR06M5sY= =WCB8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----