From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 18:22:38
At Tuesday 2004-02-10 03:21, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." wrote:
> > >I'm convinced that propagating *unexpected* exceptions into the
> > >joining thread is totally wrong and insensible.
> > would you rather abort the application??
fine, don't catch any exceptions when you do the join(), your system will
> That said, feel free to catch anything/everything but
>please don't impose this silliness on me. The only problem with
>respect to threads/futures is that the dynamic context in which
>exceptions are thrown (in the "joinee" thread) is "detached" (in
>space and time) from the dynamic context that is supposed to
>"decide" (my means of try handler(s) or lack thereof) whether
>this or that exception is expected or unexpected.
I suggest again, that you view the thread creation and later join as the
dispatch / results portion of a normal function call. If you cannot see
that as at least one possible use of threads, then there isn't any point in
further discussion with you.
> That leads to
>the conclusion that a typelist of expected (to be caught in the
>joinee thread and "re-rasied" in the joiner thread at join point)
>exceptions shall be specified at thread/future creation time.
I submit the argument against throw specifications (see all the relevant
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk