Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13

On 9/4/2015 11:10 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:

...

2015-09-04 21:36 GMT+02:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé :

...

What additional indirections would deriving from a base class introduce?

depends on the inheritance type

- private inheritance from helper == 'implemented-n-terms-of': functions of helper are not part of the public interface (future/promise has to invoke helper functions internally)

That's not entirely truthful:

struct base { void foo(); void bar(); };

struct derived : private base { using base::bar; // bar is part of the public interface now };

derived d; d.foo(); // error, foo is private d.bar(); // fine

...

- public inheritance from helper == 'is-a': functions of helper are part of the public interface, but I don't like to track a future as the same as a promise (or packaged_task) I don't think Agustin is asking for this kind of inheritance. I believe

Le 05/09/15 06:15, Agustín K-ballo Bergé a écrit : that it is talking to the common part of future<T>, future and future<void>, and the samefor promise.

...

=> void foo( helper &) could be called for future and promise

I fail to see how this is relevant. You'd have `future_base`, `promise_base`, etc. There is no "tracking" issue in sight.

...

so I believe using template specializationonly is reasonable

No, sorry, that's just unreasonable; it goes against some pretty fundamental design principles. I must have failed to explain myself correctly, please don't hesitate to keep asking if I am unclear.

Vicente