Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-27 11:36:33

"Slawomir Lisznianski" <slisznianski_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:18:25 -0400, "David Abrahams"
> <dave_at_[hidden]> said:
>> What's expected doesn't matter. It's what's implemented that counts.
> I think, in the context of this discussion,

Let's just restore that context, shall we?

You wrote:

> Althought no standard mandates it, it is commonly expected that each
> thread can set its own terminate() or unexpected() function -- calling
> set_terminate() or set_unexpected() in one thread affects only the
> exceptions in that thread.

> it matters quite a lot. What we are debating specifically, is
> whether a library can allow for customization, yet leave an option
> of having a default (usually commonly expected) behavior of coring
> with a full stack trace.

My point was that it doesn't matter if people expect that capability
when the compiler and/or OS don't provide it. Arguments about what is
"usually commonly expected" are almost always a reflection of the
expectation of the person making the argument, and not based on any
kind of hard data. Is this case an exception?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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