-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 June 2008 18:12 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> The pseudocode isn't even O(N); it's O(NlnN) at best, maybe worse. :-) Do
> note that it doesn't necessarily dispatch a single request per wait_for_any
> call though.
Your pseudocode putting the futures in a set does bring up a missing feature
in both the proposals. They don't provide an operator<() that is a strict
weak ordering so they can be used as keys. A future_handle should have no
problem providing an ordering where two future_handles are equivalent if and
only if they both reference the same promise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIRIYN5vihyNWuA4URAukHAJwNo5McItLrdn28lIq2cDEZR8UITQCfdqOt
alZDXfzr+2bV77IniW4LdNU=
=jzgI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
