From: Slawomir Lisznianski (slisznianski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-29 01:20:17
David Abrahams wrote:
> My point was that it doesn't matter if people expect that capability
> when the compiler and/or OS don't provide it.
Your point was obviously valid, but how was stating it getting us any
closer to solving the problem at hand (of silent thread death)?
What I proposed was for the library to loosen up and let the default,
platform specific behavior, kick in. The accompanying Boost.Threads
manual could state "if an exception escapes the thread function, the
outcome is platform specific". If I'm a user who is not satisfied with
the "platform specific behavior", or simply don't know what that
behavior is, I will wrap my thread function and make it act one way or
another. The important point being: the user will have a choice between
a compiler supplied handler and her own.
> 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.
Leveraging compiler features in under- or non-standardized areas seems
like a fair objective to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk