From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-13 10:02:10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
> At Monday 2002/08/12 11:48, you wrote:
> >Uhmmm... you recall incorrectly then. I would never have done that, as
> >illegal. The example I posted didn't do this.
> you are, of course, correct
> In my haste, I didn't recognize your use of the name main (in function
> main) where it should be _obvious_ (sarcasm intended) that it couldn't
> possibly be mistaken for the address of a function.
Ahh... I understand where the confusion lies now, and I do deserve some
admonishment. I used the name main because, in haste, it seemed to convey
the purpose, but you're quite right that it only causes confusion with
main(). Sorry about that.
> I'm not sure that language support is all that's needed. Tho I really
> _some_ HLL would get around to having a swap operator (declaring it
> to be atomic would be ++good) it might even be sufficient.
I don't follow your thinking here, but I get the feeling you don't
comprehend the issue.
> as an aside, I _detest_ coding to the "lowest common denominator" which we
> appear to "have" to do.
It's not a "lowest common denominator" issue. The problem at hand here is
undefined by ALL the APIs, as well as the C++ standard.
> >If you can define what's erroneous, let alone how it's erroneous, then
> >accusation is baseless. Believing I'm wrong is not the same thing as
> >proving I'm wrong.
> no kidding.... OJ isn't in jail.
You're being a little adversarial again. Work with me, not against me.
> > 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.
> Ok, it is my opinion that there is nothing in the standard (that has been
> presented thus far) that would preclude implementing the separation of
> and return to/from a function via a thread mechanism, and that furthermore
> exceptions _could_ be passed back when the return from the function was
And this is what I think clinches that you don't understand the issue at
hand. I never claimed there was anything that precluded the separation of
call and return to/from a function via a thread mechanism. Or that
exceptions could be passed back when the return from the function was
instantiated. I claimed that the concept could not be applied _to the main
thread_, because that results in an explicit call to terminate(), possibly
with out stack unwinding, no less.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk