Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant@gmail.com> 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.
Thank you for the support. I have now extended the current thread library on trunk so that it supports all the cancellation points from N2320 on POSIX and Windows.
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.
I'll change the name over. It's just a name, after all. 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