From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-12 13:48:26
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
> At Monday 2002/08/12 09:44, you wrote:
> >From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
> > > I assert that using an "underlying library" to cause main to be
> > > again is NO different than calling it directly!
> >I never asserted that the "underlying library" caused main to be executed
> >_again_. In fact, that's not at all what occurs.
> I was referring to your example which you claimed couldn't be done
> portably... as I recall it made a thread and pointed the execution address
Uhmmm... you recall incorrectly then. I would never have done that, as it's
illegal. The example I posted didn't do this.
> > > If the standard is silent on a subject (and apparently it's exactly
> > > the tar baby with respect to threads) we should be able to choose a
> > > behavior that isn't wildly at odds with the rest of the standard (i.e.
> > > causes no real surprises).
> >Only if the non-standard threading extensions explicitly allow it.
> I'm suggesting as strongly as possible that they SHOULD allow it.
But they _don't_. That's the point. They are mute on the subject, mostly
because they are C APIs. This puts C++ developers in very murky waters, and
they have to be very careful that what they do doesn't violate the rules for
either the standard, or the library, and then hope (with reasonable
assurances that it will) that things work the way they expect. That's why
Boost.Threads came into being... to explore the dark corners, provide
reasonable solutions today, and find which such solutions would be better
implemented differently with language support.
> > > >>You certainly bandy about the old standard when it suits your
> > > >>I believe you have mis-read it miserably in an attempt to justify a
> > > >>decision on your part (not allowing exceptions to be passed back).
> > > >
> > > >Where have I misread it?
> > >
> > > I have no idea where you misread it.
> >Then stop making baseless accusations.
> it's not baseless. you've come to what I believe to be an erroneous
> conclusion from somewhere!
If you can define what's erroneous, let alone how it's erroneous, then the
accusation is baseless. Believing I'm wrong is not the same thing as
proving I'm wrong. You could reword what you just said as an opinion, and I
wouldn't object (though I'd still ask you to do the leg work to prove me
wrong), but as it is you're not stating opinions but accusing me of
something you can't prove. That's a baseless accusation.
> > > You seem to think that some clause about uncaught exceptions in main()
> > > applies to uncaught exceptions in another thread.
> >I never made that claim. Better calm down and go back and read what I
> I can see we're both getting somewhat exasperated by this... a more useful
> response would have been
> "Better calm down and re-evaluate what 'blah blah (what you *did* say)'
> I'll go re-read the thread and see where I've misunderstood you.
Sorry, I did get a little carried away myself here, but I was backed into a
corner by the baseless accusations. Still should have kept myself in check
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk