<heller1>
hkaiser: This might make the transition easier, as it is easier to disambiguate expressions with the same name
<hkaiser>
nod
<hkaiser>
should we go back and use the same for the executors?
<heller1>
I don't think it is worth the effort right now
<hkaiser>
ok
<heller1>
I suggest to make that change once we are closer to have an actual P0443 compliant implementation
<hkaiser>
ok
<hkaiser>
will your tag_invoke implementation be able coexist with what the standard might/will have?
<heller1>
my roadmap: 1) implement the sender concept 2) adapt hpx::future to accept senders and act as a sender 3) port wait_all 4) port when_all 5) port then
<hkaiser>
sounds good
<heller1>
yes, I discussed that with Eric, the different tag types that will exist until we have a full standardization are a potential problem. However, it should be rather trivial to hook into other implementations with different tag types. That is, just create a simple mapping for, for example hpx::basic_execution::set_value_t <-> decltype(libunifex::set_value)
<heller1>
or just namespace hpx { namespace basic_execution { using set_value_t = std::set_value_t; }}
<heller1>
the nice thing here however is, if there happens to be a convergence in semantics between the different tag types, it should be possible to close that gap with providing the appropriate algorithm
<hkaiser>
ok, makes sense
<heller1>
not convergence, divergence is what I meant
weilewei has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
weilewei has joined #ste||ar
akheir has joined #ste||ar
<hkaiser>
weilewei: 5/30 most probably was the mailing deadline, and 5/29 was the day they put the document together ;-)
<weilewei>
hkaiser Ah, IC
<hkaiser>
heller1: pls send this to Katie
<hkaiser>
heller1: is Thomas (Fahringer) still working with HPX?
<heller1>
hkaiser: not as far as I know
<heller1>
hkaiser: you can always ask him ;)
<hkaiser>
nah, I'm just curious
<hkaiser>
so AllScale is dead?
<heller1>
there is no more funding for it
<heller1>
but still paper output
<heller1>
braindead, I suppose is the right term
<heller1>
it was supposed to be my ticket into acadmia :P
bita_ has joined #ste||ar
<gonidelis[m]>
hkaiser: rori been studying membes-initializer lists and they are like WOW! Truly magnificent concept... Anyways as for the test that I am trying to implement in order to check the iterator type change, is it ok if I imitate this one? I mean, if this one works with different iterator types then my changes are fine (???)
<hkaiser>
gonidelis[m]: sure, steal as much code as you like ;-)
<gonidelis[m]>
What is the difference between `foreach.cpp` under `tests/unit/algorithms' and `foreach_range.cpp` under 'tests/unit/container_algorithms`?
<hkaiser>
gonidelis[m]: well, the code is different, no?
<K-ballo>
I bet one of those is range-aware
<gonidelis[m]>
hkaiser well, as far as I see it's the same ;p . And the reason I am asking is because I thought foreach_range had not been implemented yet (isn't that what I am doing?)
<hkaiser>
good catch
<hkaiser>
I wasn't aware of that
<rori>
yes just did a diff and they pretty much identical
<hkaiser>
probably somebody died over implementing things - most likely me ;-)
<hkaiser>
gonidelis[m]: if that's the case, then feel free to change the foreach_range.cpp as needed
<gonidelis[m]>
hkaiser: I just wanted to make sure (mostly that I am aware of my job here ;p). Thank you both. I will proceed accordingly