RecognizeOnceAsync_test.cpp

#include <speechapi_cxx.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <unistd.h>

int main() {

    using namespace Microsoft::CognitiveServices::Speech;

    using namespace Microsoft::CognitiveServices::Speech::Audio;

    auto config = SpeechConfig::FromSubscription("<<the-key>>", "eastus");

    // Creates a speech recognizer using microphone as audio input. The default language is "en-us".
    auto recognizer = SpeechRecognizer::FromConfig(config, "it-IT");

    auto audio_config = AudioConfig::FromMicrophoneInput("default"); // Or an alternative input

    auto keyword_recognizer = KeywordRecognizer::FromConfig(audio_config);

    keyword_recognizer->Recognized += [&](const KeywordRecognitionEventArgs &event) {
        std::cout<<"Keyword recognized"<<std::endl;
    };


    auto keyword_model = KeywordRecognitionModel::FromFile("./my-model.table");

    std::cout<<"Invoking RecognizeOnceAsync"<<std::endl;
    keyword_recognizer->RecognizeOnceAsync(keyword_model);
  
    //auto res = keyword_recognizer->RecognizeOnceAsync(keyword_model); // if the result is used the method is actually async

    // this line is never reached if the result of RecognizeOnceAsync is not used (due to the future destruction)
    std::cout<<"Waiting for keyword..."<<std::endl;
    
    sleep(60);

}

I think that the most helpful place is a comment (with a bit of emphasis) in the .h where the method is declared, which should be also reported on the online ref doc. I would place also a "red" general warning on the conceptual doc, specifying that it is mandatory to consume the result value of every "async" method which returns an std::future (or a shared_ptr to it). Il giorno lun 12 lug 2021 alle ore 19:33 Travis Wilson < ***@***.***> ha scritto:

…

***@***.**** commented on this gist. ------------------------------ The breaking change bit is definitely the challenge! When we can move the SDK to C++17, the [[nodiscard]] attribute <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/nodiscard> is another fantastic way to improve this. One way or another, this will certainly be improved when we get the opportunity. In the meantime, we can at least add clarity to the documentation. If I could ask: is there a place that would've been most helpful to you to have an extra warning about the behavior? Contextual IntelliSense, online ref docs, conceptual docs, any or none of the above? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://gist.github.com/6934bc025a81b7695e697b0c1ef97f86#gistcomment-3810158>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACBHPUGGLB6DJP47IPGV2MDTXMRNHANCNFSM5ADH6YRA> .

-- *Luigi R.*