"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can. On the other hand, I can implement the thread primitives and > optional, too. The point is that if, while building a high-level interface > implementation, we discover an useful low-level primitive that offers > greater expressive power (if less safety), we should consider exposing it, > too, unless there are strong reasons not to.
And we should also consider NOT exposing it, unless there are strong reasons to do so ;-). I'm all for considering everything, but let's be careful not to generalize this too much, too early. If we discover that people really need fine-grained control over the way their async_calls work, we can go with a policy-based design ;-) >> 2. Is that much different (or more valuable than) >> >> R f() -> { construct(), R result() } >> >> which is what I was suggested? > > I don't know. Post the code. ;-) done. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost