Re: [boost] [coroutine2] Difference between coroutine and coroutine2

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Rob Stewart wrote:

On June 22, 2015 1:13:54 PM EDT, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" wrote:

...

...

On June 22, 2015 4:41:05 AM EDT, Oliver Kowalke wrote:

...

2015-06-22 10:29 GMT+02:00 Rob Stewart :

...

If there's only one kind of coroutine in coroutine2, why isn't it just named "coroutine"? asymmetric_coroutine<> describes the coroutine type (assymetric transfer of execution control), With only one kind, the documentation already describes how it behaves. Having asymmetric_coroutine suggests other variations are expected in the future.

...

but coroutine.hpp contains:

template< typename T > using coroutine = asymmetric_coroutine< T >;

so you could use coroutine<> if desired. If you think asymmetric_coroutine is necessary, and clearly I do not, you should reverse those. That is, asymmetric_coroutine should be

Le 22/06/15 11:10, Rob Stewart a écrit : the alias.

...

I don't agree. asymmetric_coroutine is the correct term. This let us to add again symmetric_coroutine if the need comeback.

If that must remain a possibility, then there should be no "coroutine" alias and the header should be asymmetric_coroutine.hpp.

If symmetric_coroutine was removed for good reason, does that reason not preclude its return? I don't have that answer. I'm just inferring from the result.

I share Rob's confusion. If the 'coroutine' alias is just some sort of a default coroutine then at least its naming is inappropriate (I would suggest something like 'default_coroutine', if such alias is at all needed). If the library does not plan to add a symmetric_coroutine then I see no point in the 'asymmetric' qualification.