Hello, I made many efforts to make this clear, this was sent also to the boost-users list. I won't insist in this mailing list if nobody is interested in the idea Here is my mail: I have worked on a prototype to avoid the current limitations with async code, the use of sync + async code is really difficult, it does not co-exist easily. If you introduce async code, you have to migrate all your code ... There are alternative solutions (threads..) but here is a suggestion to overcome these limitations. It is currently a very simple prototype but I would be interested to have your feedback. I think this kind of solution can be really powerfull, but I will wait to know what you think about it. Here are the links: https://pythonc.home.blog/ https://github.com/chbailly/5a5 Regards, Chris On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 02:11, Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 12/12/2018 13:31, Christophe Bailly wrote:
It is not really a question about using library but a question/suggestion about another possible implementation of async code.
Which is still a usage of a library.
The code posted works, is asynchronous though there is a synchronous call in the middle (by synchronous I mean the function is written just like a synchronous function, nothing to change).
Coroutines look like synchronous code, but they are still asynchronous because they can be suspended and resumed at yield points. It is still problematic to block without yielding.
Have a look at the examples provided with Boost.Asio.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost