Re: [boost] Common future base class (was Re: Boost.Fibermini-review September 4-13)
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Hartmut Kaiser
I've always found when_any much more interesting than when_all. Is it as trivial to implement with await as when_all?
Nod, I agree. However, I have not found a clever way to do that yet.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Williams
On 07/09/15 14:36, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
On 9/7/2015 4:32 AM, Anthony Williams wrote:
On 03/09/15 16:47, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
calling `set_value` on the same instance from different threads concurrently is expected to work, as in only one (unspecified) of them will actually make the shared state ready while all the others would throw `promise_already_satisfied`?
Yes, that was the intent. I've got an example that does exactly that in chapter 8 of my book.
Could you describe briefly what this example does? Is it just workers racing (in the good sense) to satisfy the promise? Or does serialization of set_xxx calls matter?
It's just workers racing to satisfy the promise. The first one to do so sets the value, the rest get an exception.
Seems like that could be the basis for a nice when_any?
On 8/09/2015 03:30, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
Could you describe briefly what this example does? Is it just workers racing (in the good sense) to satisfy the promise? Or does serialization of set_xxx calls matter?
It's just workers racing to satisfy the promise. The first one to do so sets the value, the rest get an exception.
Seems like that could be the basis for a nice when_any?
Races to get exceptions in the common case does not satisfy any meaning of the word "nice".
participants (2)
-
Gavin Lambert -
Nat Goodspeed