From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 10:55:20
Beman Dawes wrote:
> I strongly suggest we use the name "interruption". That appears to be
> much more acceptable.
I recognized this quite some time ago already and tried to suggest
"alert". Because this is what the suggested mechanism really means.
"Alerting" a thread means causing it to throw an exception when in
an alertable state.
While interrupt describes also what the mechanism is about to do, the
name is overloaded with HW interrupt semantics already. Personally I
think it should be avoided as for this reason.
Not trying to mix alertion with cancellation, so was my hope, would
reduce the risk of misunderstanding. Of course it is possible to turn
alertion into cancellation on the user-side easily.
But, my suggestion went by almost unrecognized. Perhaps this is a new
Roland aka speedsnail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk