Re: [futures] boost::futures

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces@...
> [mailto:boost-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov

> Indeed, the intent has been for futures to support arbitrary
> asynchronous
> task execution, not just the simple thread per task model.
> One could imagine
> using futures over an interprocess protocol or TCP/IP.
>
> My current proposal for std::future<R> is available at
>
> http://www.pdimov.com/cpp/N2185.html

May I ask why you saw it necessary to have std::fork in that
incarnation? Won't you /always/ do the same thing?

I'm not sure why we couldn't have it be implied that construction of a
future implies "fork".

Thanks,

Sohail
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost