From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 10:18:27
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Here's an interesting read on the subject:
>> For those of you not familiar with the language of standardization,
>> this is an official letter from the C committee to the C++ committee
>> saying: "Thank you for removing cancellation. Now we want you to
>> promise that you will not even discuss bringing it back."
> I just spotted that in the mailing. Ouch. I know we removed cancellation so we
> could make progress on other stuff, but I really think we ought to bring it
> One of the key things people have said to me when I have mentioned that we're
> standardizing a thread library for C++ is "does that include cancellation?"
> Everyone I've spoken to about it has been very glad the answer was "yes."
> I've added cancellation to the boost thread library (though currently
> this_thread::cancellation_point is the only cancellation point on pthreads ---
> something I intend to fix), and I don't intend to remove it.
I think Boost will perform a valuable service to the community if we
develop successful cancellation extensions.
The name, however, is very contentious, particularly among the POSIX
community. It appears to me that any C++ language or library use of the
name "cancellation" causes the POSIX community to try to derail all
further progress, regardless of technical merit or existing practice.
I strongly suggest we use the name "interruption". That appears to be
much more acceptable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk