From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-31 22:16:27
On Oct 31, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Johan Nilsson wrote:
> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>> * Thread cancellation is new, and
>>> disable_cancellation/restore_cancellation are even newer. They are
>>> new for C++ programmers, and maybe new for *all* programmers (I
>>> of a language with them). I'm not sure if it's a good idea to
>>> standardize them before we get some real-life experience with thread
>> Actually thread cancellation is old. Many (not all) thread API's
>> have some form or another of cancellation. That being said, the
>> compromise reached at the Kona meeting 4 weeks ago was to remove
>> cancellation (or interruption) from the proposal. This removal is
>> reflected in N2411.
> Oh, no. I think thread cancellation is a must-have in general, and
> it would
> be really great to have it within the standard.
> It's not that it's a big problem to make/use composite cv
> predicates, where
> one part holds the "cancel" part and the other the real stuff - but
> this in the standard would allow implementations to even cancel e.g.
> unconditional mutex waits.
> Sure, C and C++ compatibility would be great - but is this "just" a
> of principle, or is there a large user base which is only waiting for
> cross-language threading compatibility? I'm certainly not (sorry).
Here's an interesting read on the subject:
For those of you not familiar with the language of standardization,
this is an official letter from the C committee to the C++ committee
saying: "Thank you for removing cancellation. Now we want you to
promise that you will not even discuss bringing it back."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk