Anthony Williams-4 wrote:
is_ready doesn't trigger the callback, so this won't work.
That depends on what you mean by "work".
It isn't ready, so is_ready() returns false. It just happens to always return false until you do something to make it ready.
If you wait on it, it becomes ready. If you don't wait, it doesn't. This is the essential problem with lazy futures.
That is way too strange semantics. A user would not expect having to call wait() or get() to make a future become ready. I have been thinking about not type erasing the laziness and instead providing a lazy_future class or composite future class. But I think inherent, type-erased laziness is a better idea. Johan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-future--Early-draft-of-wait-for-multiple-futures-inte... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.