Boost logo

Boost :

From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-09 17:48:05

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Alexander Terekhov

> > Is everyone convinced that propagating the exception into the joining
> > thread is the right behavior or even semantically sensible?
> I'm convinced that propagating *unexpected* exceptions into the
> joining thread is totally wrong and insensible.

I agree with that completely. I think we need a tool that:

1) Can be used across boundaries (inside one process) that exceptions cannot
pass. I.E. threads, other languages (like Python, VB), or OS callbacks like
windows message handlers.

2) Can be provided with a specify a set of exceptions to be caught across
this boundary.

3) Can relay some information to the caller about which exception was
caught. Candidates currently are copies of the exception, with the risk of
slicing, or cloning, which is intrusive.
I don't have any opinion off of the top of my head about whether or not this
mechanism should automatically throw the copies or clones of these
exceptions. In the case of thread groups it seems like a list of exceptions
would be better. Propagation feels more appropriate if you want to think of
one thread (or a windows modal dialog) returning a value.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at