From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-09 08:51:39
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Green" <green_at_[hidden]>
> Basically, I think the whole "main is special" thing is a nuisance that
has
> to be lived with. However, as I understand it, there isn't really anything
> special about the "main thread" only about the main function
(specifically,
> exiting it)? We obviously cant break existing code that relies on this
> behaviour, but I think we can assume that the app developer "owns" main()
> and can stick a catch (...) there at least. It is the other threads that
are
> harder to control... Assuming we do actually get to the point of allowing
> threads to terminate due to an uncaught exception without terminating the
> whole process, the issue of just how to deal with this (which thread(s)
get
> notified? how? when?) remains an issue, and a more interesting one than
this
> tedious stuff about having to call terminate() :-)
I agree with the concern. I hope the standards committee can address this
and remove some of the "main is special" problems. But as a library
developer I can't really manage that. But I don't think that simply calling
terminate() results in the problems you think it does. By setting a
terminate() handler and checking what thread has called it, you can stop the
termination (and more importantly, set up some sort of error handling
here!).
Bill Kempf