-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 781
[2025-06-lwg-21] P3149R11 async_scope - Creating scopes for non-sequential concurrency #8027
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
That's not really a hard conflict due to name lookup rules, right? |
ed9536d
to
109df4b
Compare
|
|
||
auto query(execution::get_scheduler_t) const noexcept { | ||
return @\exposid{loop}@->get_scheduler(); | ||
\indexlibraryglobal{execution::\exposid{associate-data}}% |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To my knowledge, we don't index exposition-only declarations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe we didn't used to but we do now (probably since more and more of them are being introduced in the library?)
auto token = std::move(this->@\exposid{token}@); | ||
|
||
@\exposid{destroy}@(); | ||
token.disassociate(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The paper has a blank line between each statement. I think we should either do what the paper says, or just get rid of all. The blank line after auto token
is not really necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Formatting of codeblocks is up to the discretion of the editor. I typically try to be consistent with surrounding code, which in this case tends to insert a space after declarations when there is more than 1 statement to follow. Feel free to submit a PR to format this differently.
I think I've missed a few |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some loose threads (like FWD-ENV-T
, _t
in an exposition-only name, indexing for exposition-only names), but I don't really know how to go about those, so I'll see myself out of the review process.
Thanks for the other changes in the latest push; those look good.
Maybe Thomas will know what to do once he gets here.
Direction unclear, feedback from Thomas or Jonathan needed.
fbe7a4f
to
4b298cb
Compare
[exec.associate]p12 Renamed "scope_token" to "scope_tkn" due to libconcept of the same name. [exec.spawn.future]p2 [exec.spawn]p2 Employ bullets. [exec.stop.when]p3 [exec.counting.scope]p11 Merged paragraphs via bullets for clarification ("sndr" and "token" aren't defined otherwise and get confused with the \exposids of the same name). [exec.counting.scopes.general] Added missing \expos comments. [exec.counting.scopes.general] Fixed "close" in scope-state-type to "closed". [exec.counting.scopes.general]p1.3 Changed "the scope" to "scope".
4b298cb
to
6ab1d5d
Compare
6ab1d5d
to
b050f96
Compare
[exec.associate]p12 Renamed "scope_token" to "scope_tkn" due to libconcept of
the same name.
[exec.spawn.future]p2 [exec.spawn]p2 Employ bullets. [exec.stop.when]p3 [exec.counting.scope]p11 Merged paragraphs via bullets for
clarification ("sndr" and "token" aren't defined otherwise and get confused
with the \exposids of the same name).
[exec.counting.scopes.general] Added missing \expos comments. [exec.counting.scopes.general] Fixed "close" in scope-state-type to "closed". [exec.counting.scopes.general]p1.3 Changed "the scope" to "scope".
Fixes #7958.
Fixes cplusplus/papers#1800