This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.
Section: 30.6.8 [futures.shared_future] Status: Resolved Submitter: Alisdair Meredith Opened: 2010-01-23 Last modified: 2016-02-10
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [futures.shared_future].
View all issues with Resolved status.
The revised futures package in the current working paper simplified the is_ready/has_exception/has_value set of APIs, replacing them with a single 'valid' method. This method is used in many places to signal pre- and post- conditions, but that edit is not complete. Each method on a shared_future that requires an associated state should have a pre-condition that valid() == true.
[ 2010-01-28 Moved to Tentatively Ready after 5 positive votes on c++std-lib. ]
[ 2010 Pittsburgh: ]
NAD Editorial. Rationale added below.
Solved by N3058.
Insert the following extra paragraphs:
In 30.6.8 [futures.shared_future]
4 Effects: constructs ...
void wait() const;
22 Effects: if the associated ...
template <class Rep, class Period> bool wait_for(const chrono::duration<Rep, Period>& rel_time) const;
23 Effects: if the associated ...
template <class Clock, class Duration> bool wait_until(const chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& abs_time) const;
25 Effects: blocks until ...