catch(...) and forced unwind

[David Abrahams]

Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:

> On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:49 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>> Yep, I appreciate your point.  I just wanted to make the distinction
>>> clear
>>> for those who weren't familiar with pthreads, especially since we were
>>> talking about David Butenhof's opinion.  He's very clear that he
>>> thinks
>>> asynchronous cancelation (in the technical POSIX sense) is an evil
>>> feature, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he feels that way
>>> about deferred cancellation.
>>
>> Right.  Nothing at all wrong with deferred cancellation per say.
>> Deferred cancellation good; violating contracts bad.
>
> The real issue, of course is the old one: that the people defining the
> POSIX standard and the people defining the C++ standard didn't
> spend enough time talking to each other.  POSIX doesn't know
> anything about C++ contracts.

Nor about standard C++ library functions, I presume?  Why should it
have any impact on the behavior of the C++ lib from a standards POV?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com