> But we're being asked to believe that, all of a sudden, language support for coroutines is critical! Who said that really? I did not used word "critical" and was wondering why it is so. Why did you got that impression? I was only interested because your "colleagues", "rivals" at msvc clang libs are working on it and gcc seems silent about it, wanted to see it what is going here. Also unlike 50 years of existence now seems that syntax are getting constant in many programming languages and does not feel like spit out hack. OOP also existed before classes via form of function pointers and structs, but it got its form from smaltalk era onwards, that everyone is familiar. Really take boost.coroutine2, some Macro ridden coroutine libraries, or any c coroutine task library and compare what N4680 draft proposes. Which of them is feel more natural and easier integrate to base C++? No one suggests it is "critical". But do not think that interest is special or strange, it just isn't. On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2017-08-18 16:51 GMT+03:00 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> In another thread somebody pointed out that Mikhail posted a patch >> with some initial work, but I'm not sure if that went anywhere: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00435.html > > Unfortunately, it didn't. I realized, that implementing the actual work > (i.e., coroutine lowering) is not feasible for me as a side project. > > -- > Regards, > Mikhail Maltsev
