From: terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 11:27:24
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > > Anything can lead to poor programming practices. It's one thing
> > call a
> > > state-changing interface dangerous, but informational
> > When you
> > > need the info and the library doesn't provide it, you're really
> > a creek
> > > with no paddle.
> > I agree totally, but if an interface gives no practical
> > but can still lead to poor practices should you still consider
> > including it? What purpose would it serve to check the
> > state? Alexander Terekhov appears to have the same reservations
> > I do based on existing practice in Java.
> This sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.
What is this? (Pardon me for my poor English and ignorance).
Anyway, I do not want someone to interpret my comments as
*claims* that Java's termination/interrupt model is nonsense.
What I am trying to say is that while perhaps being useful
in some cases (which I fail to identify or consider NOT really
important), in no way it should REPLACE the existing simple
and default PTHREAD cancel/exit model. It probably could be
added on top or as non-default alternative if you really want
it and think that you could convince every POSIX vendor out
there to add this new beast.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk