From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-31 03:45:58
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Yuval Ronen wrote:
>> * Thread cancellation is new, and
>> disable_cancellation/restore_cancellation are even newer. They are
>> new for C++ programmers, and maybe new for *all* programmers (I never
>> of a language with them). I'm not sure if it's a good idea to
>> standardize them before we get some real-life experience with thread
> Actually thread cancellation is old. Many (not all) thread API's
> have some form or another of cancellation. That being said, the
> compromise reached at the Kona meeting 4 weeks ago was to remove
> cancellation (or interruption) from the proposal. This removal is
> reflected in N2411.
Oh, no. I think thread cancellation is a must-have in general, and it would
be really great to have it within the standard.
It's not that it's a big problem to make/use composite cv predicates, where
one part holds the "cancel" part and the other the real stuff - but having
this in the standard would allow implementations to even cancel e.g.
unconditional mutex waits.
Sure, C and C++ compatibility would be great - but is this "just" a matter
of principle, or is there a large user base which is only waiting for
cross-language threading compatibility? I'm certainly not (sorry).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk