You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jira@arrow.apache.org by "Ben Kietzman (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2020/11/03 20:22:00 UTC
[jira] [Created] (ARROW-10484) [C++] Future<{void,Status}> could be
more generic
Ben Kietzman created ARROW-10484:
------------------------------------
Summary: [C++] Future<{void,Status}> could be more generic
Key: ARROW-10484
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-10484
Project: Apache Arrow
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: C++
Affects Versions: 2.0.0
Reporter: Ben Kietzman
Assignee: Ben Kietzman
Fix For: 3.0.0
The members of {{Future<{void,Status}>}} differ from other instantiations of {{Future<>}} since they contain only a Status and not a value. This is reasonable, however it complicates generic usage of {{Future<>}} since special cases must be added for the different interfaces. IMHO it'd be acceptable to provide an empty "ValueType" (or maybe {{std::nullptr_t}} to follow the precedent of Datum's default state) for those specializations to keep the interface generic.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)