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] [Commented] (ARROW-10484) [C++] Future<{void,Status}> could
be more generic
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-10484?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17225652#comment-17225652 ]
Ben Kietzman commented on ARROW-10484:
--------------------------------------
[~apitrou]
> [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
> Priority: Major
> 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)