Re: [boost] Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 10:22:50

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions

> From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > >We can special case thread<void> to terminate on exceptions, of course,
> but
> > >a consistent specification would be better.
> >
> > thread<nothrow> ??  (a poor attempt at levity)
>
> The more I think of it, the more I like the thread<void> special case. It
is
> logical: when you ask for a thread that returns a value, this implies that
> you will join() that thread. When you use thread<void>, you don't care
about
> the return value.

It's not logical (to me at least).  Functions that return void can still
throw exceptions.  More over, you'll often still want to join() a
thread<void>.  A so no correlation to nothrow semantics and void returns,
even when talking about a thread call.

Bill Kempf