------=_Part_2641_1705421819.1458406458900
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_2642_578353597.1458406458900"

------=_Part_2642_578353597.1458406458900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake, as
well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines? The one with
execution contexts as explicit objects. That proposal doesn't seem to have
advanced at all.

I know that some noise was being made over combining the library approach
with some compiler optimizations to allow execution contexts to not take up
space sometimes. But what happened with all of that?

Has any committee time been put into stackless coroutines at all?

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/80e33111-d341-4054-81d6-4e4516082df2%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_2642_578353597.1458406458900
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it=
 time to bake, as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whateve=
r happened to P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines? The one=
 with execution contexts as explicit objects. That proposal doesn&#39;t see=
m to have advanced at all.<br><br>I know that some noise was being made ove=
r combining the library approach with some compiler optimizations to allow =
execution contexts to not take up space sometimes. But what happened with a=
ll of that?<br><br>Has any committee time been put into stackless coroutine=
s at all?<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/80e33111-d341-4054-81d6-4e4516082df2%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/80e33111-d341-4054-81d6-4e4516082df2=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_2642_578353597.1458406458900--
------=_Part_2641_1705421819.1458406458900--

.

------=_Part_294_1987192568.1458406514306
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_295_724750717.1458406514307"

------=_Part_295_724750717.1458406514307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:54:19 PM UTC-4, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
> Has any committee time been put into stackless coroutines at all?
>

Sorry; that last line should be:

Has any committee time been put into stackful coroutines at all?

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/d05a2fd0-4f33-469c-8d2a-508f9565f125%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_295_724750717.1458406514307
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:54:19 PM UTC-4, Nicol Bo=
las wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left:=
 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">Has=
 any committee time been put into stackless coroutines at all?<br></div></b=
lockquote><div><br>Sorry; that last line should be:<br><br>Has any committe=
e time been put into stackful coroutines at all?<br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/d05a2fd0-4f33-469c-8d2a-508f9565f125%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/d05a2fd0-4f33-469c-8d2a-508f9565f125=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_295_724750717.1458406514307--
------=_Part_294_1987192568.1458406514306--

.

------=_Part_499_1045257490.1458425361881
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_500_2134295976.1458425361881"

------=_Part_500_2134295976.1458425361881
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8



On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake,
> as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
> P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?
>

p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the keyword
based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be continued on
an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099). I'd be
interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0158r0.html

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/4b4b2e9b-e6b8-47eb-867b-ca94c8b418ee%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_500_2134295976.1458425361881
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nic=
ol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-=
left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr=
">I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake, =
as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to P=
0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?<br></div></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the ri=
sks with the keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that w=
ork be continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P=
0099). I&#39;d be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.</=
div><div><br></div><div>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/=
2015/p0158r0.html =C2=A0</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/4b4b2e9b-e6b8-47eb-867b-ca94c8b418ee%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/4b4b2e9b-e6b8-47eb-867b-ca94c8b418ee=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_500_2134295976.1458425361881--
------=_Part_499_1045257490.1458425361881--

.

------=_Part_69_306085173.1458427120041
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_70_1278663410.1458427120041"

------=_Part_70_1278663410.1458427120041
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8



On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>
>> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake,
>> as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
>> P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?
>>
>
> p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the
> keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be
> continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099).
>

It didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:

> Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.

They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.


> I'd be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.
>

.... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you know, P0057 is bound
for a TS
<http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/>
..

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/15278409-0448-4572-b074-ed838e20990b%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_70_1278663410.1458427120041
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, P=
etke wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left=
: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><b=
r><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was =
put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake, as well as time for us t=
o consider alternatives. But whatever happened to P0099, the pure-library i=
mplementation of coroutines?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>p015=
8r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the keyword bas=
ed suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be continued on an a=
lternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099).</div></div></bloc=
kquote><div><br>It didn&#39;t say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:<=
br><br>&gt; Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler su=
pport.<br><br>They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.<br>=C2=
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: =
0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div=
> I&#39;d be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.</div><=
/div></blockquote><div><br>... I thought that the feedback would be obvious=
 since, you know, P0057 is <a href=3D"http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip=
-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/">bound for a TS</a>.</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/15278409-0448-4572-b074-ed838e20990b%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/15278409-0448-4572-b074-ed838e20990b=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_70_1278663410.1458427120041--
------=_Part_69_306085173.1458427120041--

.

------=_Part_442_731595845.1458429448569
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_443_909859966.1458429448570"

------=_Part_443_909859966.1458429448570
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8



On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake,
>>> as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
>>> P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?
>>>
>>
>> p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the
>> keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be
>> continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099).
>>
>
> It didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:
>

Quoting from the paper:

"Preferred Direction. First [...] if there is strong interest within the
committee for this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C++17 [...]
Second, we strongly believe that the "suspend-up" suspension model chosen
by P0057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in other languages
[...]  We would therefore strongly encourage work to be continued on an
alternative "down" suspension model approach so that the committee has the
opportunity to compare and evaluate the relative benefits and costs of both"


>
> > Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.
>
> They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.
>

"suspend-down lets us build coroutine models as library abstractions. It
does not limit us to a particular model, nor does it embed type
requirements into the language."


>
>> I'd be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.
>>
>
> ... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you know, P0057 is bound
> for a TS
> <http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/>
> .
>


They got their first "wish" (of not putting P0057 into C++17), I'm
wondering about feedback on their second wish (of continuing work on a
suspend-down alternative).

/Petke


--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/bf9479e2-f6ba-4809-bcf4-d6f6659b5a88%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_443_909859966.1458429448570
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Ni=
col Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin=
-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"lt=
r"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, =
March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotin=
es TS, to give it time to bake, as well as time for us to consider alternat=
ives. But whatever happened to P0099, the pure-library implementation of co=
routines?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>p0158r0 may be of inter=
est to you. It summarises the risks with the keyword based suspend-up model=
 of P0057, and recommends that work be continued on an alternative library =
based suspend-down model (like P0099).</div></div></blockquote><div><br>It =
didn&#39;t say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:<br></div></div></bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>Quoting from the paper:<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>&quot;Preferred Direction. First [...] if there is strong interest w=
ithin the committee for this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C+=
+17 [...] Second, we strongly believe that the &quot;suspend-up&quot; suspe=
nsion model chosen by P0057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in=
 other languages [...] =C2=A0We would therefore strongly encourage work to =
be continued on an alternative &quot;down&quot; suspension model approach s=
o that the committee has the opportunity to compare and evaluate the relati=
ve benefits and costs of both&quot;<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br>&gt; Third, any c=
oroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.<br><br>They seem =
to not want library-based solutions. I do.<br></div></div></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>&quot;suspend-down lets us build coroutine models as librar=
y abstractions. It does not limit us to a particular model, nor does it emb=
ed type requirements into the language.&quot;=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border=
-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0</div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> I&#39;d be =
interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.</div></div></blockq=
uote><div><br>... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you k=
now, P0057 is <a href=3D"http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winte=
r-iso-c-standards-meeting/" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=
=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F%2Fherbsutter.=
com%2F2016%2F03%2F11%2Ftrip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting%2F\46sa\7=
5D\46sntz\0751\46usg\75AFQjCNFZ3B3a9QEjcfgwYx8CEw1gJTtchA&#39;;return true;=
" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F%2Fhe=
rbsutter.com%2F2016%2F03%2F11%2Ftrip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting%=
2F\46sa\75D\46sntz\0751\46usg\75AFQjCNFZ3B3a9QEjcfgwYx8CEw1gJTtchA&#39;;ret=
urn true;">bound for a TS</a>.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>They got their first &quot;wish&quot; (of not putting P0057 =
into C++17), I&#39;m wondering about feedback on their second wish (of cont=
inuing work on a suspend-down alternative).</div><div><br></div><div>/Petke=
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/bf9479e2-f6ba-4809-bcf4-d6f6659b5a88%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/bf9479e2-f6ba-4809-bcf4-d6f6659b5a88=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_443_909859966.1458429448570--
------=_Part_442_731595845.1458429448569--

.

------=_Part_2481_1108299714.1458433073204
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_2482_968951385.1458433073204"

------=_Part_2482_968951385.1458433073204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8



On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 7:17:28 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to
>>>> bake, as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever
>>>> happened to P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?
>>>>
>>>
>>> p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the
>>> keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be
>>> continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099).
>>>
>>
>> It didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:
>>
>
> Quoting from the paper:
>
> "Preferred Direction. First [...] if there is strong interest within the
> committee for this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C++17 [...]
> Second, we strongly believe that the "suspend-up" suspension model chosen
> by P0057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in other languages
> [...]  We would therefore strongly encourage work to be continued on an
> alternative "down" suspension model approach so that the committee has the
> opportunity to compare and evaluate the relative benefits and costs of both"
>

I don't see the part of this that talks about a library-only solution.

> Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.
>>
>> They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.
>>
>
> "suspend-down lets us build coroutine models as library abstractions. It
> does not limit us to a particular model, nor does it embed type
> requirements into the language."
>

That's still talking about putting suspend-down in the language, then
building abstractions (like await-style coroutines) as library facilities.


>>
>>> I'd be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.
>>>
>>
>> ... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you know, P0057
>> is bound for a TS
>> <http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/>
>> .
>>
>
>
> They got their first "wish" (of not putting P0057 into C++17), I'm
> wondering about feedback on their second wish (of continuing work on a
> suspend-down alternative).
>

The thing about P0057 is that it's Microsoft's baby. It's their idea, their
design, and most importantly, their *implementation*.

The problem with the non-library competing solutions is that nobody's
implemented it. They have several different ideas of what they want, but
none of them are willing or able to put in the time to prove that it works
by getting it implemented. Look at the conclusion section, where they
basically say, "We'd love to have something to test, so you non-Microsoft
compiler writers should write something."

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_2482_968951385.1458433073204
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 7:17:28 PM UTC-4, P=
etke wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left=
: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><b=
r><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, =
March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:1=
9 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time t=
o bake, as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happe=
ned to P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?<br></div></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarise=
s the risks with the keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommend=
s that work be continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model=
 (like P0099).</div></div></blockquote><div><br>It didn&#39;t say that at a=
ll. Quite the opposite in fact:<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>=
<div>Quoting from the paper:<br></div><div><br></div><div>&quot;Preferred D=
irection. First [...] if there is strong interest within the committee for =
this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C++17 [...] Second, we str=
ongly believe that the &quot;suspend-up&quot; suspension model chosen by P0=
057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in other languages [...] =
=C2=A0We would therefore strongly encourage work to be continued on an alte=
rnative &quot;down&quot; suspension model approach so that the committee ha=
s the opportunity to compare and evaluate the relative benefits and costs o=
f both&quot;<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I don&#39;t see the part =
of this that talks about a library-only solution.<br><br></div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div></div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>&gt; Third, any =
coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.<br><br>They seem=
 to not want library-based solutions. I do.<br></div></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>&quot;suspend-down lets us build coroutine models as libra=
ry abstractions. It does not limit us to a particular model, nor does it em=
bed type requirements into the language.&quot;</div></div></blockquote><div=
><br>That&#39;s still talking about putting suspend-down in the language, t=
hen building abstractions (like await-style coroutines) as library faciliti=
es.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margi=
n-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0</d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> I&#39;d b=
e interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.</div></div></bloc=
kquote><div><br>... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you=
 know, P0057 is <a href=3D"http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-win=
ter-iso-c-standards-meeting/" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" onmousedow=
n=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F%2Fherbsutter=
..com%2F2016%2F03%2F11%2Ftrip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting%2F\46sa\=
75D\46sntz\0751\46usg\75AFQjCNFZ3B3a9QEjcfgwYx8CEw1gJTtchA&#39;;return true=
;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;http://www.google.com/url?q\75http%3A%2F%2Fh=
erbsutter.com%2F2016%2F03%2F11%2Ftrip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting=
%2F\46sa\75D\46sntz\0751\46usg\75AFQjCNFZ3B3a9QEjcfgwYx8CEw1gJTtchA&#39;;re=
turn true;">bound for a TS</a>.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
><br></div><div>They got their first &quot;wish&quot; (of not putting P0057=
 into C++17), I&#39;m wondering about feedback on their second wish (of con=
tinuing work on a suspend-down alternative).</div></div></blockquote><div><=
br></div>The thing about P0057 is that it&#39;s Microsoft&#39;s baby. It&#3=
9;s their idea, their design, and most importantly, their <i>implementation=
</i>.<br><br>The problem with the non-library competing solutions is that n=
obody&#39;s implemented it. They have several different ideas of what they =
want, but none of them are willing or able to put in the time to prove that=
 it works by getting it implemented. Look at the conclusion section, where =
they basically say, &quot;We&#39;d love to have something to test, so you n=
on-Microsoft compiler writers should write something.&quot;<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_2482_968951385.1458433073204--
------=_Part_2481_1108299714.1458433073204--

.

--001a1143dd1840e668052e728c7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think Gor's implementing it on Clang currently. It will be interesting to
see how it behaves, but it will most of all provide another implementation
to play with :)

2016-03-19 20:17 GMT-04:00 Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 7:17:28 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to
>>>>> bake, as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever
>>>>> happened to P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summarises the risks with the
>>>> keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and recommends that work be
>>>> continued on an alternative library based suspend-down model (like P0099).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite in fact:
>>>
>>
>> Quoting from the paper:
>>
>> "Preferred Direction. First [...] if there is strong interest within the
>> committee for this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C++17 [...]
>> Second, we strongly believe that the "suspend-up" suspension model chosen
>> by P0057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in other languages
>> [...]  We would therefore strongly encourage work to be continued on an
>> alternative "down" suspension model approach so that the committee has the
>> opportunity to compare and evaluate the relative benefits and costs of both"
>>
>
> I don't see the part of this that talks about a library-only solution.
>
> > Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler support.
>>>
>>> They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.
>>>
>>
>> "suspend-down lets us build coroutine models as library abstractions. It
>> does not limit us to a particular model, nor does it embed type
>> requirements into the language."
>>
>
> That's still talking about putting suspend-down in the language, then
> building abstractions (like await-style coroutines) as library facilities.
>
>
>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to know what the feedback was on this paper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ... I thought that the feedback would be obvious since, you know, P0057
>>> is bound for a TS
>>> <http://herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> They got their first "wish" (of not putting P0057 into C++17), I'm
>> wondering about feedback on their second wish (of continuing work on a
>> suspend-down alternative).
>>
>
> The thing about P0057 is that it's Microsoft's baby. It's their idea,
> their design, and most importantly, their *implementation*.
>
> The problem with the non-library competing solutions is that nobody's
> implemented it. They have several different ideas of what they want, but
> none of them are willing or able to put in the time to prove that it works
> by getting it implemented. Look at the conclusion section, where they
> basically say, "We'd love to have something to test, so you non-Microsoft
> compiler writers should write something."
>
> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381%40isocpp.org
> <https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381%40isocpp.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAKiZDp0_pxupfUxuUSKUVimxwUa4c4uHRD%2ByO85maZ%3D2RnP7SA%40mail.gmail.com.

--001a1143dd1840e668052e728c7f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I think Gor&#39;s implementing it on Clang currently. It w=
ill be interesting to see how it behaves, but it will most of all provide a=
nother implementation to play with :)<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2016-03-19 20:17 GMT-04:00 Nicol Bolas <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jmckesson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jm=
ckesson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><span class=3D""><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 7:17:28 P=
M UTC-4, Petke wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;ma=
rgin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"lt=
r"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrot=
e:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Satur=
day, March 19, 2016 at 6:09:22 PM UTC-4, Petke wrote:<blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 4=
:54:19 PM UTC, Nicol Bolas wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it t=
ime to bake, as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever =
happened to P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines?<br></div>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>p0158r0 may be of interest to you. It summ=
arises the risks with the keyword based suspend-up model of P0057, and reco=
mmends that work be continued on an alternative library based suspend-down =
model (like P0099).</div></div></blockquote><div><br>It didn&#39;t say that=
 at all. Quite the opposite in fact:<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>Quoting from the paper:<br></div><div><br></div><div>&quot;Prefer=
red Direction. First [...] if there is strong interest within the committee=
 for this [P0057] proposal then put it into a TS, not C++17 [...] Second, w=
e strongly believe that the &quot;suspend-up&quot; suspension model chosen =
by P0057R0 is a poor one and echoes the mistakes made in other languages [.=
...] =C2=A0We would therefore strongly encourage work to be continued on an =
alternative &quot;down&quot; suspension model approach so that the committe=
e has the opportunity to compare and evaluate the relative benefits and cos=
ts of both&quot;<br></div></div></blockquote></span><div><br>I don&#39;t se=
e the part of this that talks about a library-only solution.<br><br></div><=
span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-=
left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv></div><div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;mar=
gin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr=
"><div>&gt; Third, any coroutines proposal needs some degree of compiler su=
pport.<br><br>They seem to not want library-based solutions. I do.<br></div=
></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&quot;suspend-down lets us build co=
routine models as library abstractions. It does not limit us to a particula=
r model, nor does it embed type requirements into the language.&quot;</div>=
</div></blockquote></span><div><br>That&#39;s still talking about putting s=
uspend-down in the language, then building abstractions (like await-style c=
oroutines) as library facilities.<br><br></div><span class=3D""><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> I&#39;d be interested to know what the fee=
dback was on this paper.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>... I thought tha=
t the feedback would be obvious since, you know, P0057 is <a href=3D"http:/=
/herbsutter.com/2016/03/11/trip-report-winter-iso-c-standards-meeting/" rel=
=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">bound for a TS</a>.</div></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>They got their first &quot;wish&quot; (=
of not putting P0057 into C++17), I&#39;m wondering about feedback on their=
 second wish (of continuing work on a suspend-down alternative).</div></div=
></blockquote><div><br></div></span>The thing about P0057 is that it&#39;s =
Microsoft&#39;s baby. It&#39;s their idea, their design, and most important=
ly, their <i>implementation</i>.<br><br>The problem with the non-library co=
mpeting solutions is that nobody&#39;s implemented it. They have several di=
fferent ideas of what they want, but none of them are willing or able to pu=
t in the time to prove that it works by getting it implemented. Look at the=
 conclusion section, where they basically say, &quot;We&#39;d love to have =
something to test, so you non-Microsoft compiler writers should write somet=
hing.&quot;<br></div><span class=3D"">

<p></p>

-- <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" target=3D"_=
blank">std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org" target=3D"_blank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br></span>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-4458-a75a-6c788b152381%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank">=
https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/9c2add0e-fbc3-=
4458-a75a-6c788b152381%40isocpp.org</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAKiZDp0_pxupfUxuUSKUVimxwUa4c4uHRD%2=
ByO85maZ%3D2RnP7SA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter"=
>https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAKiZDp0_pxup=
fUxuUSKUVimxwUa4c4uHRD%2ByO85maZ%3D2RnP7SA%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--001a1143dd1840e668052e728c7f--

.

--001a1137c0ae38f884052e760db7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2016-03-19 17:54 GMT+01:00 Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>:

> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake,
> as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
> P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines? The one with
> execution contexts as explicit objects. That proposal doesn't seem to have
> advanced at all.
> I know that some noise was being made over combining the library approach
> with some compiler optimizations to allow execution contexts to not take up
> space sometimes. But what happened with all of that?
>

unfortunately P0099R0 was ignored as its predecessors


> Has any committee time been put into stackless coroutines at all?
>

you mean 'stackful' - right?

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwfc1-vafL48SaegWM%3DyDbV_q%2BT%2BKLKaaPB9bO5j8%3DF8VjG8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--001a1137c0ae38f884052e760db7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2016=
-03-19 17:54 GMT+01:00 Nicol Bolas <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
jmckesson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jmckesson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<=
br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I know that P0057 was pu=
t into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake, as well as time for us to =
consider alternatives. But whatever happened to P0099, the pure-library imp=
lementation of coroutines? The one with execution contexts as explicit obje=
cts. That proposal doesn&#39;t seem to have advanced at all.<br>I know that=
 some noise was being made over combining the library approach with some co=
mpiler optimizations to allow execution contexts to not take up space somet=
imes. But what happened with all of that?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>unfortunately P0099R0 was ignored as its predecessors<br></div><di=
v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Has any commi=
ttee time been put into stackless coroutines at all?</div></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>you mean &#39;stackful&#39; - right?<br></div></div><br></d=
iv></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwfc1-vafL48SaegWM%3DyDbV_q%2BT%2=
BKLKaaPB9bO5j8%3DF8VjG8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Df=
ooter">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwf=
c1-vafL48SaegWM%3DyDbV_q%2BT%2BKLKaaPB9bO5j8%3DF8VjG8Q%40mail.gmail.com</a>=
..<br />

--001a1137c0ae38f884052e760db7--

.

On 20 March 2016 at 09:37, Oliver Kowalke <oliver.kowalke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-03-19 17:54 GMT+01:00 Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I know that P0057 was put into a Coruotines TS, to give it time to bake,
>> as well as time for us to consider alternatives. But whatever happened to
>> P0099, the pure-library implementation of coroutines? The one with execution
>> contexts as explicit objects. That proposal doesn't seem to have advanced at
>> all.
>> I know that some noise was being made over combining the library approach
>> with some compiler optimizations to allow execution contexts to not take up
>> space sometimes. But what happened with all of that?
>
>
> unfortunately P0099R0 was ignored as its predecessors

I disagree with the characterization of the papers being ignored. The
author, meaning you, specifically said that he's not targeting C++17,
so there
was no pressing need to have a detailed review of that proposal.
Torvald convinced the committee
that we should do coroutines in a TS in order to explore the various
approaches (including
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2016/p0073r1.pdf) and potential
further unification (there are far fewer differences between using and
writing stackless and stackful
coroutines if the approach in the aforementioned paper is proven viable).
Nothing blocks pure library approaches at the moment, but there have been
no requests to review them in EWG for C++17.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUaET-Z7v65wUqpODnvA%2BZCvqygJp46w2tJO5XmWfBRckw%40mail.gmail.com.

.

------=_Part_3086_1216011170.1458482647660
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_Part_3087_1009677971.1458482647660"

------=_Part_3087_1009677971.1458482647660
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:26:40 PM UTC-4, Patrice Roy wrote:
>
> I think Gor's implementing it on Clang currently. It will be interesting
> to see how it behaves, but it will most of all provide another
> implementation to play with :)
>

That's the nice thing about Microsoft; when they decide that they want
something, they will go get it done. We saw this with modules, which kinda
languished around for years after C++11 shipped. People made proposals, and
there were kinda implementations or whatever. But nothing seemed to
actually be moving forward, particularly in terms of standardization.

Then Gabriel Dos Reis shows up and says, "Hey, we're implementing modules. *Right
now*. And they're going to behave like this." All of a suddenly, genuine
progress is being made towards standardization. A year later, they have
approval for a TS based on that.

And now this. People complained about P0057 by saying, "Well, just because
it's implemented in VS doesn't mean we know anything, since nobody in HPC
uses VS." So Gor says "OK" and implements it *for them* ;)

So if people don't want to see P0057 in C++19/20 (and I am one of them), I
would suggest that they'd better get into gear and actually start
*implementing* an alternative.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ffcb7834-f863-43c5-94b9-307629b9306e%40isocpp.org.

------=_Part_3087_1009677971.1458482647660
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:26:40 PM UTC-4, Patrice =
Roy wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left:=
 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">I t=
hink Gor&#39;s implementing it on Clang currently. It will be interesting t=
o see how it behaves, but it will most of all provide another implementatio=
n to play with :)<br></div></blockquote><div><br>That&#39;s the nice thing =
about Microsoft; when they decide that they want something, they will go ge=
t it done. We saw this with modules, which kinda languished around for year=
s after C++11 shipped. People made proposals, and there were kinda implemen=
tations or whatever. But nothing seemed to actually be moving forward, part=
icularly in terms of standardization.<br><br>Then Gabriel Dos Reis shows up=
 and says, &quot;Hey, we&#39;re implementing modules. <i>Right now</i>. And=
 they&#39;re going to behave like this.&quot; All of a suddenly, genuine pr=
ogress is being made towards standardization. A year later, they have appro=
val for a TS based on that.<br><br>And now this. People complained about P0=
057 by saying, &quot;Well, just because it&#39;s implemented in VS doesn&#3=
9;t mean we know anything, since nobody in HPC uses VS.&quot; So Gor says &=
quot;OK&quot; and implements it <i>for them</i> ;)<br><br>So if people don&=
#39;t want to see P0057 in C++19/20 (and I am one of them), I would suggest=
 that they&#39;d better get into gear and actually start <i>implementing</i=
> an alternative.<br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ffcb7834-f863-43c5-94b9-307629b9306e%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ffcb7834-f863-43c5-94b9-307629b9306e=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />

------=_Part_3087_1009677971.1458482647660--
------=_Part_3086_1216011170.1458482647660--

.

--089e0122eba0572fdb052e7dc26b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hello all,
I'm slowly working myself out of lurker mode on these threads. Like Nicol I
didn't read that paper as preferring a library-only solution, rather
libraries with basic compiler assistance, and I don't really agree with the
assessment of the risks of the suspend-up model in the paper either.

At Facebook we've found a pure library-based solution to be very useful,
but not without flaws. Stack size is hard to balance for efficiency and
safety with no compiler support, for example. We'd be interested in seeing,
and contributing to, continued work on stackful coroutines.

I say this with no prejudice to Microsoft's proposal, of course, we
certainly don't consider the suspend up model a mistake as some do and have
only recently converted a very large codebase into that style and I would
have been happy to see P0057 in C++17. Both approaches have their place and
we'd like to see both available.

Lee

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAJH_FNUiRbk6zcMDO00R5HzjvQWnHFLK71c30EMECmW2MYEP-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--089e0122eba0572fdb052e7dc26b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Hello all,</div><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra">I&#39;m slowly working myself out of lurker mode on these threa=
ds. Like Nicol I didn&#39;t read that paper as preferring a library-only so=
lution, rather libraries with basic compiler assistance, and I don&#39;t re=
ally agree with the assessment of the risks of the suspend-up model in the =
paper either.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra">At Facebook we&#39;ve found a pure library-based solution to be ver=
y useful, but not without flaws. Stack size is hard to balance for efficien=
cy and safety with no compiler support, for example. We&#39;d be interested=
 in seeing, and contributing to, continued work on stackful coroutines.</di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I say thi=
s with no prejudice to Microsoft&#39;s proposal, of course, we certainly do=
n&#39;t consider the suspend up model a mistake as some do and have only re=
cently converted a very large codebase into that style and I would have bee=
n happy to see P0057 in C++17. Both approaches have their place and we&#39;=
d like to see both available.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra">Lee</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAJH_FNUiRbk6zcMDO00R5HzjvQWnHFLK71c3=
0EMECmW2MYEP-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">htt=
ps://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAJH_FNUiRbk6zcMD=
O00R5HzjvQWnHFLK71c30EMECmW2MYEP-Q%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--089e0122eba0572fdb052e7dc26b--

.

--089e0149c844b2fc46052e7e9678
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2016-03-20 17:49 GMT+01:00 Lee Howes <xrikcus@gmail.com>:

> We'd be interested in seeing, and contributing to, continued work on
> stackful coroutines.
>

the interface of execution_context has been enhanced (no need for static
member-fn) in boost.1.61 - maybe we will publish this in a P0099R1

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwfc19QHeM3wxLV87pRSCzxbOW1tJB5yiOoT%3DJvvvFQ9_4hpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--089e0149c844b2fc46052e7e9678
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2016=
-03-20 17:49 GMT+01:00 Lee Howes <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:xr=
ikcus@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">xrikcus@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">We&#39;d be interested in seei=
ng, and contributing to, continued work on stackful coroutines.<br></div></=
blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">the interface of exec=
ution_context has been enhanced (no need for static member-fn) in boost.1.6=
1 - maybe we will publish this in a P0099R1<br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwfc19QHeM3wxLV87pRSCzxbOW1tJB5yi=
OoT%3DJvvvFQ9_4hpQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter"=
>https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CA%2Bwfc19QHe=
M3wxLV87pRSCzxbOW1tJB5yiOoT%3DJvvvFQ9_4hpQ%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--089e0149c844b2fc46052e7e9678--

.