Re: [Capy/Corosio review] Benchmark results

On 6/29/26 16:41, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:40 AM Ruben Perez via Boost <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> The extra thread is allocated by the timer service in Capy, underlying capy::delay()
>> and capy::timeout().
>>
> 
> Huh? How can Capy implement delay() and timeout() without a reactor? I
> don't think those functions belong in Capy.

Removing them would drastically reduce the usefulness of 
Capy-without-Corosio, and timing is semantically orthogonal to sockets. 
Capy's documentation used to be full of calls to 
std::this_thread::sleep_for, which is not a thread-pool-safe operation. 
(It still is, technically, but I think all of the remaining calls are 
either simulated work or in non-coroutine contexts, so they're all right.)


-- 
Rainer Deyke - [email protected]

_______________________________________________
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/UTN37LKNSYV3BTDOP65IQJMYLO3BDGUE/