From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-30 00:25:02
> --- In boost_at_y..., John Max Skaller <skaller_at_o...> wrote:
> > Greg Colvin wrote:
> > > To be clear, just stopping a thread "out of nowhere" is
> > > a bad idea, as there is then no way to get out of any
> > > monitors it has entered. Better is a way to throw an
> > > exception on the thread, so as to let destructors run.
> > You did not meet the requirements.
> > The thread is blocked. It cannot throw anything.
> This is not true. Any operation that is a "cancellation point" can
> block until either the operation completes, in which case it returns
> normally, or until a cancellation occurs,
Greg's constraint was to not use cancellation.
My argument was to show that it is sometime necessary.
> > It is a core language issue whether destructors
> > are run when a thread is cancelled.
> Only if threads are a core language feature.
> We're not discussing a
> change to the core language, we're discussing a Boost threading
The matters are related. The library may be useful
without core support, but it will never be C++ without it.
Which would be a pity, IMHO.
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 New generation programming language Felix http://felix.sourceforge.net Literate Programming tool Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk