Conversation
* Rename from _`stop_when`_ to _`stop-when`_ to match expo-only naming style * Create a section in the wording to define _`stop-when`_ so it can be referred to in both `spawn_future` and `counting_scope::wrap` * Fix up references to `get_stop_token(r)` so they now say `get_stop_token(get_env(r))`
Rewrite the wording for `counting_scope::token::wrap` to use _`stop-when`_ now that it's been defined in its own section.
Factor "if the provided token is unstoppable then _`stop-when`_ return its input sender" into the definition of _`stop-when`_.
Applying changes after reviewing with @dietmarkuehl.
Reword `spawn_future` to use _`stop-when`_ as the means by which we construct the "fused stop token" we need. Also, tweak the formatting a little.
Per @rarutyun and @villevoutilainen's P3706R0 and @RobertLeahy's P3685R0, rename `nest` to `associate` and `async_scope_token` to `scope_token`. Also updated uses of "nest" as a verb through the paper to use "associate" instead to be consistent with the algorithm's name.
I realized we were still addressing this proposal to SG1 and LEWG, even though both subcommittees have forwarded us. This diff changes the audience to LWG.
We reasoned that `spawn_future` and `join` don't need to do any sender-specific type-checking so the default implementation of _`check-types`_ is fine.
Move the responsibilities of `@_spawn-future-state_@::@_run_@` into the constructor, eliminating a try-catch block in `spawn_future`'s `start` implementation.
* Remove the _`run`_ method from _`spawn-state`_ by moving its behaviour into the constructor * Simplify the implementation of `spawn` by deleting try-catch-wrapped invocation of _`run`_ * Re-express the _`spawn-state`_ constructor in prose * Tighten up the formatting * Move paragraph 5, which defines `alloc` and `senv` to paragraph 10, just before the definition of `spawn` itself
Tim Song provided feedback via an email to lib@lists.isocpp.org; this diff attempts to apply that feedback.
This diff incorporates the feedback we received during the final session of LWG on Wednesday in Sofia. I've also tried to proactively update the wording for `counting_scope` to match the feedback given on `simple_counting_scope`, and made some editorial changes like updating references to P2300 to refer to R9 and R10 where appropriate rather than R7, added to the Acknowledgments, and a few other similar changes.
Wrap lines at 120 characters, line up //-comments. Leave two TODOs to be resolved by LWG.
Some small editorial changes to sections 1 through 6 to ensure that the design discussion and wording are in sync, and that references to other papers are referring to the appropriate (usually most-recent) revision.
ispeters
changed the title
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.