Re: [boost] Thread cancellation

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:
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2455.pdf
>>
>> 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
> back.
> 
> 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.

--Beman