On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:50:34 -0400, "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> said:
And am somewhat disappointed that the low-level worker function needs to be aware of promise.
In some cases you do want it to be aware of the promise if you chain many async operations together, and only fulfill promise at the end of the chain. However a simpler interface for the one-async-operation case would be nice, I agree.
What if there existed a:
template <class R> template <class F> promise_functor<R, F> promise<R>::operator()(F f);
This would be in addition to the current setter functionality in promise.
Hmm, I think I'd prefer a non-member function to make the distinction between that act of settingthe promise and the act of composing another function object clearer when reading the code. I don't see any implementation reason to make it a member function - is there one? Cheers, Chris