Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dale Peakall (dale.peakall_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-08 05:03:07

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 4:54 pm, you wrote:
> I think so. Which is only evidence that the logic applied isn't
> necessarily the logic that everyone would apply, and thus the premise (that
> thread<void> would indicate nothrow semantics) is shaky at best.

I have to agree with Bill here. It just doesn't fit in my view of "common
sense" which means that as I'm clearly not alone it can't be considered as
entirely "obvious" semantics. To be honest, it looks, smells and feels like
a hack :-)

If you don't want your worker threads to cause your application to terminate
on unexpected exceptions catch(...) and add whatever logic is appropriate to
your application. In my applications, uncaught exceptions mean something
*bad* has happened. Normally some form of SEGV/Access Violation and once
this has occurred the applications best choice is to terminate. In almost
all real-world circumstances graceful recovery just doesn't work (at least
when I've tried it).

        - Dale.

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