[c++-pthreads] Re: Does the cancelation exception have a name?

[Dave Butenhof]

Peter Dimov wrote:
> This time we have a deadline to meet. My current understanding is that 
> the placeholder section above has already been voted into the working 
> paper by an official ISO formal motion, and the intent of the 
> committee is that in 'C++0X', X should be decimal. :-) In practice 
> this means that the threading API proposal is already late by one 
> meeting.
This line of cynicism has already been carried too far, but if I HAD 
been inclined to pointlessly continue it, I might have been tempted to 
point out that one could see a "down side" when "they're determined to 
have something in the next 3 years and the proposal is already late by 
one meeting" is "the good news". ;-)

But really, although the "endless story" aspect of all this is amusing I 
really don't intend to be seriously cynical. I'm glad people have been 
thinking about it, I think there HAS been an increasing understanding 
and maturity on the subject, there are some proposals on the table that 
have some merit, and there's a pretty decent chance there'll be 
something in the standard that's meaningful. And that's all good.

Best of all, a C++ cancel/exit model based on exceptions will put 
pressure on implementors for a common exception engine (as in Tru64 UNIX 
;-) ) for C and C++ because NON-integrated cancel will be a mess for 
everyone. But that pressure WILL meet with substantial resistance, and 
there's going to be a trainwreck as people shake out their brand new 
cool C++ code and find it doesn't work with C code any more than when 
C++ didn't know about threads at all. C++ can't fix that... but most C++ 
implementors are also C implementors and CAN. Will they?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: david.butenhof.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 476 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/c++-pthreads/attachments/20061107/eaeba16d/attachment.vcf>