different template parameter for completions in spec vs implementation

[Steven Hofmeyr]

Whenever there is a Completions typename in the spec which is set to a default, it looks like this:

typename Completions = decltype(operation_cx::as_future ())

But in the actual upcxx implementations, these are always:

typename Cxs = completions<future_cx<operation_cx_event>>

Am I missing something or is the spec outdated?

[BrianS]

I think they are both correct. I've used both notations. We might want to pull this to just one syntax.

[Amir Kamil]

I will let @jdbachan be the arbiter on this. But as I see it, the spec specifies it the way it does because it does not prescribe actual types for completion objects. The implementation is free to use the actual implementation-defined types for completions.

[john bachan]

@akamil said it right. The implementation may "express" the type however it likes, so long as its the right type.