Boost logo

Boost :

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-14 16:32:13

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> The quoted POSIX rationale seems very similar to the
widespread "fear of
> exceptions" that was abroad in the land before we understood how to
> about them. It sounds like the POSIX designers weren't confident
they could
> figure out which operations should give the 'C' equivalent of the
> guarantee, so they threw up their hands. Well, in fairness I think
they also
> were worried about the vast quantity of legacy 'C' code which
doesn't know
> how to support cancellation.
> I don't think we should approach this problem the same way:
> 1. We have the tools to think about exception-safety

Well, POSIX does as well, at least to some extent. (True C++
exceptions with stack unwinding and destructors are much more
flexible.) Either the issues they saw are real, even for C++ using
exceptions, or they just didn't feel they had enough experience to
deal with it and took the easy way out. Since I know nothing about
the process they went through to come to the decisions they made, I
won't try and guess here. At some point I hope to convince some
people who were there to help out with making some decisions here.
This includes some of those that were there during the design of Java
as well.

> 2. We don't have a lot of legacy code out there already using our
> If people can't deal with cancellation exceptions, they are free to
> cancellation at the thread entry point, so they always have a way

No, but there's plenty of legacy code that handles exceptions, and in
ways that may not be compatible with a thread cancellation
mechanism. And the "out" may not work. If they do need
cancellation, but some third party library doesn't play nice, where's
the out?

Any way, I think I may have given you the wrong impression.
Boost.Threads *WILL* include cancellation. I was just trying to say
that I feel confident in the decision to not include cancellation
from the get-go, but to wait until we can iron out all the obvious
gotchas. Again, I think I can say this confidently because Win32
programmers have done without builtin cancellation since '95.

> -Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> Interesting point. Yet more reasons why I don't want to arbitrarily
> add a simple cancellation mechanism. I'm still learning all of the
> perils of cancellation since my platform doesn't support this
> concept. I don't think this is a bad decision, after all, a very
> large number of programmers get along quite well with out builtin
> cancellation. In fact, I often get the impression that the Win32
> programmers are better off with out cancellation, though I do
> understand the desire to include this.
> Bill Kempf
> Info: Send unsubscribe requests to:
> <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_y...>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Bill Kempf

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