[...]
This non-allocating implementation is an interesting argument in favor of
On 26 May 2015 12:59 am, "Peter Dimov" <lists@pdimov.com> wrote: the current "unique future", which I've long disliked. I prefer futures to be shared_futures. Interesting, why do you dislike the unique future design? A shared future pretty much requires holding a shared pointer and needs heavy weight synchronisation ( a muted+condvar or equivalent). On the other hand a unique future need no internal mutual exclusion and the only synchronisation is needed for the handoff between producer and consumer; the reference count is implicit (just have the consumer always deallocate the object). The implementation can be significantly more light weight. -- gpd _______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost