Weeeell, I don't see any response to this, and I don't consider it
that important for an inital release, so guess I'll mark an initial
one, and maybe we can add this in later.
-- Janet
Am Mi., 13. Okt. 2021 um 23:25 Uhr schrieb Janet Blackquill <uhh...@gmail.com>:
>
> I don't think that would work, considering that for practicality
> reasons, we need a std::function to hold onto the then callback to be
> able to invoke it when the future completes. Also, lambdas capturing
> unique_ptrs seem to be somewhat rare. Not sure that it is worth taking
> time to pursue a non-copying std::function alternative for
> non-copyable lambdas.
>
> -- Janet
>
> Am Mo., 30. Aug. 2021 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Ivan Čukić <ivan.cu...@kde.org>:
> >
> > > > `then` when calling it, which you lose if you switch from std::function
> > > > to
> > > > a generic Fn parameter. But you can (since you're already using C++20)
> > > > restrict it with the std::invocable concept to avoid this loss of API
> > > > usage information.
> > >
> > > I still don't follow what this means for Croutons other than "don't
> > > use std::function because [jargon]". What exactly do I end up using
> > > instead...?
> >
> > Not really jargon, but maybe an overly technical explanation :)
> >
> > So instead of
> >
> > void then(std::function<ret(arg)> then_fn)
> >
> > you'd write (simplest alternative that uses static_assert to check
> > that the function object passed to .then has the correct signature)
> >
> > template <typename Fn>
> > void then(Fn then_fn)
> > {
> > static_assert(std::is_invocable_r_v<ret, Fn, arg>);
> > ....
> > }
> >
> > This is the solution that should fit the library the most.
> >
> >
> > If you want to overload .then for different types of function objects,
> > you can use concepts instead of static_assert. But it is a bit more
> > involved.
> >
> > If you want to specify the argument type for the function object
> > and make the compiler allow only function objects that take a
> > value of type arg while ignoring the return type:
> >
> > template <std::invocable<arg> Fn>
> > void then(Fn then_fn)
> > {
> > ....
> > }
> >
> >
> > If you want to specify both the return type and the argument type
> > and have the compiler enforce both when the user calls .then:
> >
> > // Defines a concept similar to std::invocable, but allows to
> > // enforce the return type as well
> > template <typename Fn, typename Ret, typename Arg>
> > concept invocable_r =
> > requires(Fn fn) {
> > { std::invoke(fn, std::declval<Arg>()) }
> > -> std::convertible_to<Ret>;
> > };
> >
> > template <invocable_r<ret, arg> Fn>
> > void then(Fn then_fn)
> > {
> > ....
> > }
> >
> >
> > > The point about move-only types doesn't seem to apply, considering all
> > > types in a future need to be understood by QVariant.
> >
> > The type in the future can be QVariant-able while the lambda you pass to
> > `then` might be move only because it uses a unique_ptr somewhere inside.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ivan
> >
> > --
> > dr Ivan Čukić
> > i...@cukic.co, https://cukic.co/
> > gpg key fingerprint: 8FE4 D32F 7061 EA9C 8232 07AE 01C6 CE2B FF04 1C12
> >
> >
> >
