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? Roland aka speedsnail