Re: [Capy/Corosio review] Benchmark results

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:50 AM Ruben Perez <[email protected]> wrote:

> It looks like it can. These functions seem to have been there for a while:
>
> https://master.capy.cpp.al/capy/reference/boost/capy/timeout.html
> https://master.capy.cpp.al/capy/reference/boost/capy/delay.html


Hmm... no, I don't think this is a good idea at all.


> I find the ergonomics of delay() and timeout() much better than those of
> timers, but that's a different concern to what's being discussed here.
>

Well, of course the ergonomics are better. Because the Capy timer
operations hide a memory allocation through use of std::function:

https://github.com/cppalliance/capy/blob/9144290189fa149b27617c7d9a476c8fbffb7b8c/src/ex/detail/timer_service.cpp#L33

Corosio makes this explicit by requiring the user to manage the timer
object's lifetime.


> This makes me wonder if it is safe to use delay() and timeout() with an
> io_context with a concurrency_hit of one, or not.
>

I think these two functions and the timer service should be removed as a
condition of acceptance. They can be moved to the examples.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7SU3HOWGGMOPJIAZYNVTU3FAYMZIIDVV/