------=_Part_3054_936090537.1437287734851
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_3055_1131654697.1437287734851"

------=_Part_3055_1131654697.1437287734851
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Moved this from the general discussion forum.

Hi everyone,

I am wondering what is the current status for threading proposals. Last I
heard about was
about Christopher Kohlhoff proposal of "Executors and async operations"
(N4046)

What is proposed there sounds nice indeed, but I know there was also some
 competing proposal including N3785
I like quite much N4046 as it is lightweight and can be used in instances
where fine grained concurrency is needed and
also doesn't force you to use std::future and it's associated costs - not
suitable for many cases.

Does anybody know if there is a more or less agreed direction in which
proposal is going to continue ?

-Ghita

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.

------=_Part_3055_1131654697.1437287734851
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Moved this from the general discussion forum.</div><d=
iv><br></div>Hi everyone,<div><br></div><div>I am wondering what is the cur=
rent status for threading proposals. Last I heard about was</div><div>about=
=C2=A0Christopher Kohlhoff proposal of &quot;Executors and async operations=
&quot; (N4046)</div><div><br></div><div>What is proposed there sounds nice =
indeed, but I know there was also some =C2=A0competing proposal including=
=C2=A0N3785</div><div>I like quite much N4046 as it is lightweight and can =
be used in instances where fine grained concurrency is needed and=C2=A0</di=
v><div>also doesn&#39;t force you to use std::future and it&#39;s associate=
d costs - not suitable for many cases.</div><div><br></div><div>Does anybod=
y know if there is a more or less agreed direction in which proposal is goi=
ng to continue ?</div><div><br></div><div>-Ghita</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />

------=_Part_3055_1131654697.1437287734851--
------=_Part_3054_936090537.1437287734851--

.