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

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-12 15:07:19

Bill,

Another logical extension would be the one I suggested: to maintain
separate handler vectors for the threads. Not very feasible,
implementation-wise, perhaps (as you point out). But, another logical
extension. That is the answer to your "How is it not?". If I am wrong
here, then please advice me and direct me to the verbatim comments in
The Standard making such an extension inconsistent.

There are alternatives to your design, still being consistent with The
Standard, although I cannot think of a feasible strategy to the
thread-specific handler vectors right now ;-)

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William E. Kempf
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:41 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Threads & Exceptions

> You consider your design rational, and I am fine with that, but it is
> not implicitly derived from The C++ Standard and the behavior of the
> underlying thread libraries, as you claim.

How is it not?

Bill Kempf
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost