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

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 
>call
>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 
>in
>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.

Bill Kempf
williamkempf_at_[hidden]

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com