-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 210
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
futures
integration
#24
Comments
I've played a bit around with this here (only mutex so far), but I'm running into a pretty interesting issue: I cannot rely on looping I think a possible solution is to make use of another flag in mutexes, which essentially says "you can't someone else is currently using this mutex, so you cannot directly acquire it after it is unlocked", but even that seems pretty messy. What I'm thinking is some method that called in I guess it is sufficient with a method on Any thoughts? |
Integrating support for futures seems to be quite a bit more involved than just calling (though do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on futures) |
No, it's right. That was what I was trying to say: While my approach might work, it doesn't have to, and it is likely pretty slow if the mutex is locked all the time. |
I think that implementing support for this would require pretty extensive modifications to the |
cc. @alexcrichton cc. @nikomatsakis |
Maybe they have something to add. |
I'm not really sure what the goals are with this issue. @ticki what exactly do you mean by "futures integration"? Maybe sketch out some use cases? |
Yes I think we'd have to drill into what "futures integration" even means in this context to be able to add something. |
I'm closing this issue since it seems to be outside the scope of |
You're right. I'll make a crate for this. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: