"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: > > [...] > >> Well, I don't really feel like arguing about this much longer. > > I'd love to contribute to this discussion but there's no firm ground to > stand on. What _are_ the concepts being discussed? I think I see > > AsyncCall<R> > > AsyncCall(function<R ()> f); > > void operator()(); > > // effects: f(); > > R result() const; > > // if operator()() hasn't been invoked, throw; > // if operator()() is still executing, block; > // otherwise, return the value returned by f(). > > but I'm not sure.
That's the general idea. Of course we can haggle over the syntactic details, but the main question is whether you can get a return value from invoking a thread function or whether you have to declare some "global" state and ask the thread function to modify it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
