From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 12:26:44
--- In boost_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Tom Becker <voidampersand_at_f...> wrote:
> > >4) Allow the user to "eat" the exception.
> > >5) Make the cancellation "flag" a sticky flag, so if the
>
> I would much appreciate if someone would explain me
> the usefulness of N4 and N5 (other than ability
> to play tennis, I mean N4 handler and cancel.point/
> thread::exit(...)).
You yourself have been arguing for N4. N5 just insures the request
doesn't silently go away if someone inadvertantly "eats" the
exception.
> Why not just say that it is *undefined* behavior?
You mean say it's undefined behavior if the user doesn't rethrow?
What does this specification buy either the user or the implementer?
Bill Kempf