-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas Sent: 24 July 2015 18:48 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Futures vs async_result (was: Re: [afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday)
On 22 Jul 2015 at 22:13, Michael Caisse wrote:
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.
Oh okay. I can try my best to explain so.
I assume everyone reading understands futures.
Assumption is the mother of all foul-ups! I found this a useful summary - perhaps it should be in your documentation? Space is cheap. (Especially as I suspect that lots of people who will use network I/O will not understand what they are doing as much as perhaps they should - they want it to 'just work' - so they can concentrate on their real task?). <snip of your nice explanation> Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830