From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-20 22:21:03
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
>
> > > It occurred to me that maybe the disable_cancellation class
should
> > > defer cancellation, rather then prevent it. It isn't clear in
the
> > > documentation which of the two behaviors it will have. The
reason
> > for
> > > deferred cancellation is so the application doesn't have to keep
> > > trying to cancel a thread until it finally succeeds.
Implementation
> > > would be simple: disabling/deferring cancellation doesn't
prevent
> > the
> > > cancel flag from being set, just from being acted on.
> >
> > I thought the documentation covered this well enough. Nothing
ever
> > prevents another thread from requesting the thread be cancelled.
> > Disabling simply means that cancellation points do not throw
> > regardless of any such pending requests.
>
> I think Tom was concerned with whether the request gets discarded
or will be
> acted upon at the next cancellation point encountered with
cancellation
> enabled.
I thought the documentation covered this as well. Just to clarify,
it is acted on at the next cancellation point encountered.
Bill Kempf