From: Matthijs Möhlmann (matthijs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-08-19 11:48:43
On 19/08/2023 00:05, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I will not be able to write a decent review due to the lack of time (I am
> now on vacation), but I wanted to share some partial feedback.
>
> I am not well familiar with C++ coroutines. I wrote some toy examples of an
> async TCP echo server in ASIO in the past, to try to learn how coroutines
> work, but my knowledge is very superficial. I hoped to understand
> coroutines better from studying Boost.Async's docs.
>
> When I discovered Boost some 18 years ago, I found it useful not only
> because of the high quality libraries but also because of extraordinary
> documentation that often provided a very deep insight into the problem
> domain, a lot of rationale, design goals, and the documentation of
> engineering trade-offs of different sorts. I do not know how people feel
> about the importance of documentation nowadays. For me, however, it is the
> primary focus. I devoted like 10 hours in total for studying the docs and
> running some toy examples. Because I am not very good at C++ coroutines,
> you get a typical, I would think, feedback from a user that wants to learn
> how coroutines are used, what problems they solve, and what problems they
> do not solve.
>
> Regarding the *really* asynchronous part, promises and tasks, I guess they
> would work fine. By "really asynchronous" I mean the situations where a
> coroutine is resumed by events unpredictable by the programmer (when data
> arrives, when certain time passes, when an external connection is
> requested). I also guess that when Marcelo and Ruben say they successfully
> integrated Boost.Async into their projects, they meant types `task` and
> `promise`, rather than `generator`.
>
> My investigation was interrupted by `generator` which I cannot understand
> or appreciate. It feels like a type quite separate from the rest of the
> library. For instance, through all the simple examples in the docs, only
> the examples for `generator` never use the trick with `co_await
> async::this_coro::executor`.
>
> I needed to ask a lot of questions, and even though Klemens is very
> responsive and very helpful, I still do not understand how
> `async::generator` solves real problems. This may indicate that either I am
> a very slow learner, or that there is something wrong with the design of
> `generator`. But even if it is the former, I think I represent the average
> user of this library.
>
> When I try to use a C+23 std::generator, the usage is intuitive and
> straightforward to me. I know how to easily yield a sequence of values, and
> on the caller side how to easily check if I can still obtain the next value
> from the generator:
>
> ```
> std::generator<int> seq(int from, int to)
> {
> for (int i = from; i <= to; ++i)
> co_yield i;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> for(int i : seq(1, 4))
> std::cout << i << std::endl;
> }
> ```
> https://godbolt.org/z/PTvz3v4Y6
>
> But when I try what I believe to be an analogous example in Boost.Async, I
> get an exception:
>
> ```
> async::generator<int> seq(int from, int to)
> {
> for (int i = from; i <= to; ++i)
> co_yield i;
> }
>
> async::main co_main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> auto s = seq(1, 4);
> while (s) {
> std::cout << co_await s << std::endl;
> }
> }
> ```
>
> And the docs or examples don't help me understand why this use case doesn't
> work.
> The case with the eager generator that can be injected values is even
> weirder. I think it is wrong. Klemens thinks otherwise, but the docs do not
> give any convincing example of where and how it could be used.
>
> The lack of examples or description can be just that, but it could also
> indicate that the design for generators is missing something.
>
> In this feedback, I am only mentioning generators, because this is the
> place where I stuck in my review. I guess that other parts of the library
> do not have this problem.
>
> I am pretty sure that this library will be accepted into Boost at some
> point. It addresses a real need (although not necessarily the generators),
> and the feedback from Ruben and Marcelo are strong testimony to the quality
> of the library.
>
> But at this point, I am not comfortable with adding a library whose design
> for generators cannot be explained in the docs to the extent that I
> consider satisfactory.
>
> Would this library lose in usability if generators were removed?
>
> I know it is not a fair review. I only covered one subject, and my feeling
> is that it is not the most relevant one. So please consider it as "just
> feedback" rather than a review.
>
> Again, thanks Klemens for writing and sharing this library. I hope that
> this message does not come across as negative. I want to think that I am
> contributing to the quality of Boost.Async.
>
> Regards,
> &rzej;
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Just a question, did you also look at the ticker example? The generator is
used there.
Regards, Matthijs