I've uploaded two re-factored versions - I think most of the suggestions from the review are implemented (namespace is not corrected and documentation not updated yet).
1.) http://ok73.ok.funpic.de/boost-coroutine-self.zip 2.) http://ok73.ok.funpic.de/boost-coroutine-coro.zip
Version 1) requires that coroutine-fn has only one argument == coroutine<>::self_t. Other arguments are accessed via coroutine<>::self_t::get< int >() and results via coroutine<>::get(). interface provides input/output iterators.
typedef coroutine< int( int, int> > coro_t; int fn( coro_t::self_t & c) { int x = c.get< 0 >(); int y = c.get< 1 >(); c.yield( x +y); ... } coro_t coro( fn); int res = c( 3, 7).get();
Version 2) requires that coroutine-fn has only one argument too == coroutine<> with inverted signature. Other arguments are access via coroutine<>::get(). interface provides input/output iterators.
typedef coroutine< int( int, int> > coro_t; int fn( coroutine< tuple< int, int >( int) & c) { int x = c.get().get< 0 >(); int y = c.get().get< 1 >(); c( x +y); ... } coro_t coro( fn); int res = c( 3, 7).get();
Both implementations are not optimized - I think we should get a small and clean interface first. Comments? The single difference between both interfaces is that with fist the return is obtained using yield, while in the second is using the operator(). I prefer to use yield to return a result and the call operator to call to a coroutine. It is not enough clear to me what are
Le 05/10/12 17:22, Oliver Kowalke a écrit : the advantages of having a inversed coroutine as parameter. Anyway, maybe the use of the get accessor can be made more readable without effort using tags struct a{}; struct b{}; typedef coroutine< int( tagged<int, a>, tagged<int,b> > > coro_t; int fn( coro_t::self_t & c) { int x = c.get< a >(); int y = c.get< b >(); c.yield( x +y); ... } Best, Vicente