From: William Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-11 18:48:37
>From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
>It's such an vacuous technicality to base anything on not being able to
>main. You imply that
>1) C++ provides extra functionality for functions that the end user is
>allowed to define but not legally allowed to call
Doesn't provide, but certainly allows.
>2) this functionality was likely inherited from C
>3) main is one of these special functions
I don't follow what your point is in all of this.
>I don't think so.
What don't you think?
>The only thing demonstrated by your statement is that the C++ language
>likely suspects main as the only entry point, but it has already been said
>over and over that C++ is not inherently multi-threaded.
C++ doesn't "suspect main as the only entry point" it MANDATES that. Again,
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
>It's just one more reason why main () should be hidden from the developer
>multi-threaded C++ because it introduces a duality that causes the issues
>you've graciously pointed out.
I don't follow. I see no duality here, nor any problem caused by MT
extensions in C++. And I certainly will continue to object (strongly) to
replacing main() as the entry. As others have pointed out, this is already
required by many _application_ frameworks (where the library issue doesn't
matter), including the Boost.Test stuff that's used for testing
Boost.Threads. Sorry, I refuse to supplant main() in Boost.Threads.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk