From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 10:33:18
> Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> > would you rather abort the application??
> Isn't an unexpected exception a programming error?
Ok. I can buy that.
> We shouldn't be incorporating stuff to protect against
> programming errors, they should be caught by other means IMO
Not protecting means aborting, right?
I agree with Victor, although I might not use his hard tone ;-)
I have "only" been doing this since 1979, so I am not real old-school like
Victor, but I must say that it seems to be better to have the system survive
in spite of a slight programming error. Most MLOC programs have those;
especially multi-threaded MLOCs.
There seem to be two schools here: (1) the Standardists, striving to follow
The Standard verbatim, and (2) the Pragmatics, trying to see how different
mechanisms would affect their daily struggles with real problems.
In my extremely humble opinion, the Standardist have to diverge into various
imaginative interpretations of The Text in order to extrapolate its
constraints on multi-threading. The truth is, as discussed before, The
Standard does not even mention the word "thread." In my still very humble
opinion, The Standard does not even allow for multi-threading at all, i.e.,
Standard C++ is a single-threaded creature, as manifested by its sequential
defining execution model.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk