Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-23 09:58:53

From: "Scott McCaskill" <scott_at_[hidden]>
> You're assuming that use of catch(...) implies that the exception will
> always be re-thrown, but this does not have to be the case and indeed a
> library implementor cannot make that guarantee:

No, I don't assume anything like this. Not re-throwing in catch(...) will
ignore the cancelation request. This is a feature.

If you don't like the feature, you need core language support for a special
exception class that is always re-thrown at the end of the catch(...)

> So, thread cancellation is implemented this way, in order for it to be
> robust the user must guarantee that something like the above never occurs.
> If any libraries are being used for which the source is not available,
> isn't possible (unless you have complete trust in the library vendor, I
> suppose, but have fun tracking down _that_ kind of bug!).

Have fun tracking the other kind of bug where the library you're using is
not exception safe (basic guarantee.) I don't see a problem here. Either the
library you're using works or it doesn't.

Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at