Re: Is there any plans or work going on gcc related to c++ coroutines?

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

On 18/08/17 19:45, Ignas Brašiškis wrote:
>On 18/08/17 09:51, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> But we're being asked to believe that, all of a sudden,
>> language support for coroutines is critical!
> 
> Who said that really?

On 17/08/17 16:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I will probably switch to clang soon, despite losing concepts and a
> subjective preference for gcc, because of this feature.

On 18/08/17 19:45, Ignas Brašiškis wrote:
> I did not used word "critical" and was wondering why it is so.

See above.  :-)

> Also unlike 50 years of existence now seems that syntax are getting
> constant in many programming languages and does not feel like spit
> out hack.

It didn't seem like a hack then, either.

> OOP also existed before classes via form of function pointers and
> structs, but it got its form from smaltalk era onwards, that
> everyone is familiar.

I'm not sure I agree with you about that.  There wasn't much time
between these things: they were developed at around the same time, in
the 1960s.

> Really take boost.coroutine2, some Macro ridden coroutine libraries,
> or any c coroutine task library and compare what N4680 draft proposes.
> Which of them is feel more natural and easier integrate to base C++?
> 
> No one suggests it is "critical". But do not think that interest is
> special or strange, it just isn't.

Oh, please.  SIMULA had coroutines working perfectly well, and they
were very useful, and that was *exactly* fifty years ago!  I am just
amused, that is all.

But there is a serious question behind all of this: why now?
Coroutines are not particularly difficult to implement, and could have
been done at any time.  I'm not opposed to doing it now!

-- 
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671