From: Lee Brown (lee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-15 23:34:21
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 10:24, you wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Lee Brown <lee_at_a...> wrote:
> > O
> >
> > > > FWIW here's an old proposal of mine:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/16471
> >
> > <excerpt>
> > A thread can terminate itself by throwing
> > an exception of type "thread_end" or a type derived from thread_end.
> > </excerpt>
> >
> > Or it can just terminate and release all resources that it has a
>
> hold of.
>
> Which fails to call destructors, which is simply not acceptable.
>
> Bill Kempf
Why is this so unacceptable? Whenever a resource is allocated, in
a constructor or whatever.
Where is the flaw in the following? I must be missing something here.
class Lock {
Lock(mutex& m) : m_(m) {
disable_cancel();
m_.lock();
push_cleanup(m_ , &muxtex::unlock)
enable_cancel();
}
~Lock() {
disable_cancel();
pop_cleanup();
enable_cancel();
}
BTW: I was able to get a templated version of thread.start to work.
Did you avoid this for any reason?
private:
mutex& m_;
};
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org Send unsubscribe requests to:
> <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/