[boost] Re: Basic guarantee and synchronized multiple updates.

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-28 14:56:42

David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
> > > need a Boost error-handling library.
> >
> > Maybe. On the longer run, however, I'd really prefer that you and a
> > couple of others *rethink* exception handling facilities in C++ and
> > kinda fix them.
> 
> I'm sure you would. I'd prefer that you'd solve the problems of conflict in
> the Middle East. Deal?

Well, that's rather interesting proposition... what makes you think 
that >>I can<< solve the problems of conflict in the Middle East, to 
begin with? (IIRC, I've not {yet} leaked any info on this matter ;-) )

> > > Sounds like with all these
> > > nasty-C++-implementation-choices and thread cancellation safety issues,
> >
> > Well, I just hope that Christophe won't kill me for publishing here
> > in public my reply to his private message (in reply to my other
> > comp.std.c++ posting). I also hope that enough folks here will buy
> > his[/IEEE] article on exception handling and optimizations -- this
> > might, perhaps, kinda compensate my violation of privacy code, so
> > to speak. ;-)
> 
> Sounds like it was supposed to be private 

I'd say that it was supposed to explain to me-stupid how/why the C++ 
ABI for Itanium uses the concept of forced unwinding and, presumably, 
why it isn't that "brain-dead"/"bad". 

Personally, I'm still unconvinced. YMMV.

> and I shouldn't read it. I don't have time to pore through this 
> at the moment anyway, so it's an easy choice.

"no problemo".

regards,
alexander.