Re: thread lib review

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-09-09 20:01:25

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Peter here. It sometimes makes sense to implement
> undefined behavior in terms of throw(), but how can it make sense to
> implement defined behavior (which in this case doesn't include abort
()), in
> terms of assert (which could abort())?

I'm still unconvinced of the reasoning, but there's enough experts 
who're saying so that I accept you'd convince me eventually.  I'll 
change this.

Bill Kempf