From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 10:18:27
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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."
> I just spotted that in the mailing. Ouch. I know we removed cancellation so we
> could make progress on other stuff, but I really think we ought to bring it
> One of the key things people have said to me when I have mentioned that we're
> standardizing a thread library for C++ is "does that include cancellation?"
> Everyone I've spoken to about it has been very glad the answer was "yes."
> I've added cancellation to the boost thread library (though currently
> this_thread::cancellation_point is the only cancellation point on pthreads ---
> something I intend to fix), and I don't intend to remove it.
I think Boost will perform a valuable service to the community if we
develop successful cancellation extensions.
The name, however, is very contentious, particularly among the POSIX
community. It appears to me that any C++ language or library use of the
name "cancellation" causes the POSIX community to try to derail all
further progress, regardless of technical merit or existing practice.
I strongly suggest we use the name "interruption". That appears to be
much more acceptable.
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