David Abrahams wrote: > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> David Abrahams said: >>> No, my fault. Syntactically, I should've written this: >>> >>> async_call<int> f(create_thread(), bind(g,1,2)); >>> int r = f(); >> >> Do you want it to be "int r = f();" or just "int r = f;" or even >> "int r = f.result();" or similar? > > My other message makes it clear (I hope) that I want what I wrote > above.
Are you sure that you really want the above? Or are you speculating that you might want something like the above in a hypothetical situation that you haven't encountered yet but you might in the future? >> The f() syntax makes it look like you're invoking the call at that >> point, when in reality the call was invoked in the construction of >> f. > > You're just invoking a function to get the result. f itself is not > the result, so I don't want to use implicit conversion, and f.result() > does not let f behave polymorphically in a functional programming > context. f does not behave polymorphically, or rather, its polymorphic behavior isn't useful. In the generic contexts I'm familiar with, generators are only used to produce a sequence of values. I am not saying that this is never useful, but syntax should target the typical scenario, not corner cases. It makes a lot more sense (to me) to reserve operator() for the Runnable concept, since that's what Boost.Threads currently uses. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
