David Abrahams wrote: > "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.
With the above AsyncCall: async_call<int> f( bind(g, 1, 2) ); // can offer syntactic sugar here thread t(f); // or thread(f); for extra cuteness int r = f.result(); The alternative seems to be async_call<int> f( bind(g, 1, 2) ); int r = f.result(); but now f is tied to boost::thread. A helper int r = async(g, 1, 2); seems possible with either approach. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
