I stumbled across this during my experiments with C++11. I find that it is an obvious solution, but I haven't been able to find any other examples of it in the wild, so I'm concerned that there's something I'm missing.
The practice I'm referring to (in the "addAsync" function):
#include <thread>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
int addTwoNumbers(int a, int b) {
std::cout << "Thread ID: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
return a + b;
}
void printNum(std::future<int> future) {
std::cout << future.get() << std::endl;
}
void addAsync(int a, int b, auto callback(std::future<int>) -> void) { //<- the notation in question
auto res = std::async(std::launch::async, addTwoNumbers, a, b);
if (callback) //super straightforward nullptr handling
return callback(std::move(res));
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
addAsync(10, 10, [](std::future<int> number) { //lambda functions work great
addAsync(number.get(), 20, [](std::future<int> number) {
addAsync(893, 4387, printNum); //as do standard functions
addAsync(2342, 342, nullptr); //executes, sans callback
std::cout << number.get() << std::endl;
});
});
std::cout << "main thread: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Is it considered bad practice, or is it non-portable (I've only tried it in MSVC++ 2015)? Also, how does the compiler treat this; by conversion to std::function?
I would love to keep using this in my projects, as it obviously states the required argument types and return type in the "signature", accepts a nullptr for optionality, and seems to "just work" (I am aware that these are famous last words in C++).
See Question&Answers more detail:os