From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-20 09:32:44
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 19 May 2008 22:26 pm, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> My bad. I was thinking more about the "validity" of default
> constructed futures that don't have an associated promise. I was under
> the impression that there wasn't a way to create a future without an
> existing promise object. So something like:
>
> future<int>();
>
> Would introduce an either invalid future whose value could not ever be
> set through an associated promise.
Futures are assignable, so a default constructed future could later be
assigned a future that does have an associated promise.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIMtME5vihyNWuA4URAgTkAJ403TL2L+1Lu3tMdWfcpQ5fzt5lOACfc2yK
LXZZ2iPdpmDBKeisWaIS7bY=
=efEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----