Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz@chello.at> writes:
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 chance?
I didn't see your previous suggestion to use "alert" rather than "cancel". However, I do like interruption, and I have renamed cancellation to interruption on trunk. I know there is a potential conflict with the use of the term with hardware interrupts, but it is consistent with Java and .NET Anthony -- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL