At Tuesday 2004-02-10 08:45, you wrote:
David Bergman wrote:
There seem to be two schools here: (1) the Standardists, striving to follow The Standard verbatim, and (2) the Pragmatics, trying to see how different mechanisms would affect their daily struggles with real problems.
Sorry, that's nonsense.
with exactly (no more, no less) respect than you showed David Peter, I think you simply "don't get it".
Nobody in the world is (1), and the only reason to bring up this hypothetical school division is as an excuse to write broken code that happens to work today.
your definition of "broken" apparently doesn't match mine. I wish to be able to view a thread invocation as a delayed (possibly remote) procedure call, which _may_ return something (including an exception). Insistance that I cannot do that seems pointlessly pedantic? You haven't shown _why_ it's pointless. I say it's a useful technique, you say it's rubbish. Adopting what I want in this instance allows me to work and does _nothing_ to what you do. Adopting your point of view, prevents me from implementing some solutions. Which way do you want to play the game?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"