Re: [c++-pthreads] Re: thread-safety definition

[Alexander Terekhov <boo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Abrahams wrote:
[...]
> I think this falls into the same category as 2-phase EH: a nice thing
> for implementations to provide, but not something we can mandate in a
> standard without significantly raising the barrier-to-entry for a

Any addition raises the barrier-to-entry. If you don't have any 
technical objections, you should really stick to "degree of change 
you're requiring in currently sanctioned and common C++ code might 
reasonably be judged to be beyond the bounds of proper evolutionary 
change for an existing language with a moderately long history of 
fairly wide use" (source: DRB) line of reasoning in opposition to 
2-phase EH. Unconvincing and highly subjective, if you ask me.

> conforming C++ implementation.  Remember that the simplest EH
> mechanisms are based, essentially, around a very naive
> setjmp/longjmp-like mechanism.  

2-phase EH can be based around "not a very naive" setjmp/longjmp-
like mechanism, I think.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Isn't "export" a much more severe barrier-to-entry? ;-)