Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 19:16:56

on Mon Mar 26 2007, Roland Schwarz <> wrote:

> What I really meant by "do we need cancellation" is the inherent
> meaning of cancellation: once started you can't stop it.

That's not inherent. You're stepping into a minefield here...

> Your example seems to imply this, but I don't think this
> necessarily is the case.

"Everybody" in the C++ community wants cancellation to be an ordinary,
stoppable, C++ exception, thrown only synchronously, at well-defined
cancellation points. Anything else makes writing cancellation-safe
code basically untenable. In fact, the only person I know of in *any*
community who insists that cancellation must be unstoppable is Ullrich

> Another point (not a strict technical one though): Developing a
> mechanism that could be used for cancellation but strictly speaking
> _is_ _not_ cancellation could end the stalling discussions about
> cancellation, which are lasting almost forever now.

I suggest that trying to use meanings of "cancellation" other than the
one(s) used in the pthread standard at this point can only confuse
things, which hardly seems like a way to un-stall the process.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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