Jason Hise wrote:
Reece Dunn wrote:
Active objects would be very hard to do *automatically* since the object is a thread (very neat concept), with the constructor, methods and destructor being processed as messages to the object's thread.
The main obstacle in making them work automatically is the desire to give them familiar syntax. If the desire to call methods directly can be overlooked, it seems perfectly possible to offer a generic solution. A simplified declaration for active <> might look something like this:
template < typename Type > struct active : private Type { active( [...] );
template < typename ReturnType [, ...] > future < ReturnType > enqueue( ReturnType (Type::*func) ( [...] ) [, ...] ); };
Another thought: to make the constructor and destructor queueable actions, instead of deriving from Type, active < Type > could contain an aligned_storage of sizeof ( Type ) and construct/destruct Type in place. -Jason