On 07/22/2015 06:40 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 22 Jul 2015 at 15:16, Michael Caisse wrote:
On 07/22/2015 09:01 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
Futures gives you the option of monadic programming, and they enforce strict operation ordering very succintly. They are the right choice for file i/o, just as async_result is the right choice for network i/o.
Is there somewhere in the documentation/rational that you explain this (right choice) comparison further?
There once was, but I deleted it as it generated emails to me telling me why I was wrong :)
I don't mind restoring such a section now that I have lightweight futures which do I think address most of the problems that the async_result camp have with futures. Do you think I should incorporate this rationale into the design rationale, the tutorial, or the FAQ?
I personally do not think you need to restore the section. Some people find the async_result clumsy. Some people think it is elegant. I personally like the async_result interface and find it far more flexible; however, I can work with a future interface just fine. You have mentioned a couple times that futures is the right choice for file I/O and async_result is the right choice for network I/O. I haven't really thought too much about it but I have some ideas on why you might state that. I know you have thought about this problem domain a lot and was interested in how/why you came to that conclusion. michael -- Michael Caisse ciere consulting ciere.com