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

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 18:08:44

At Tuesday 2002/08/06 10:59, you wrote:
>Peter, but the argument that has been made is that join doesn't have to be
>called, ever.
>
>What you mentioned makes sense if terminate () is the behavior that is
>desired. I'm still a proponent of making termination a boolean state in the
>thread object.
>
>Has anyone addressed whether an exception can only be caught only once or
>whether it is possible for multiple threads waiting on join to receive the
>exception? It seems that multithreaded exceptions don't have a one-to-one
>relationship between catcher and thrower, it's many-to-one.

My initial "feeling" on this is that if it's thrown once, it's caught once.
Kinda like the auto_ptr<> semantics...no matter how many times you hand it 
around, there's still only one.
Or -- like a baseball, only on person can catch it at a time.  They may 
then throw it again (to be caught again).
Or -- to put it in other terms:  "There can be only one!" (see "Highlander" 
for details).

[deleted]
Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"