Re: Capy Review

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 12:53 PM Vinnie Falco <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 12:36 PM Ian Petersen via Boost <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We already have std::execution::get_stop_token and
>> std::execution::get_scheduler (which are analogous to but different from
>> the stop token and executor members in the proposed IoAwaitable); my own
>> paper, P4223, directly inspired by Vinnie et al's work on Capy, proposes
>> std::execution::get_frame_allocator. I suspect that the interop problem
>> would be greatly ameliorated if Capy made use of the existing, standard
>> context-sharing protocol, no?
>>
>
> First welcome to the Boost Formal Review of Capy and Corosio :) Thanks for
> visiting.
>

Thank you :)


> Now, does P2300 define any awaitable types?
>

If I've followed the discussion on Capy properly, I think Capy and P2300
define roughly the same number of awaitable types.

I don't know what the number of awaitable types in P2300 has to do with
whether or not Capy ought to reuse its standard context-sharing protocol,
though.

Ian
_______________________________________________
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/M7L6VSW2LPE34IKZ3XQ53FX6CPUOEDQI/