A related generic question: would a C++ based implementation of dispatcher be more efficient than the glib (C) based ones?
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Andrew Potter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Murray Cumming <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm starting to learn about the new concurrency APIs in C++11. I wonder > > if we could soon deprecate Glib::Threads, which wraps the glib threads > > API. Thoughts? > > https://developer.gnome.org/glibmm/stable/group__Threads.html > > Keep in mind Reader/Writer locks are only in C++14; do the current > major distros stable versions have a GCC new enough that users could > update their code to avoid the depreciation warning? > > > Maybe we'd want to reimplement Glib::Dispatcher, which has no > > corresponding API in glib, using C++11 concurrency APIs instead of > > Glib::Threads. > > I'd be interesting in seeing what a Dispatcher API with promise/future > etc would look like, but I don't think there is anything that would > replace the pipe mechanism to signal the GMainLoop; so rather than > reimplementing it you might just be adding some new methods? Or am I > missing something? I doubt you mean to add an idle handler to > std::for_each(begin(futures_list), end(futures_list), [](auto& > future){ if (future_status::ready == > future.wait_for(duration::seconds(0))) { ... } }) > _______________________________________________ > gtkmm-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list > -- Andy Tai, [email protected], Skype: licheng.tai Year 2015 民國104年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能
_______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
