🚀 go-pugleaf

Webb Scales wrote:
> 
> Harald Fuchs wrote:
> > It's simply too easy to forget an appropriate catch clause.

... but if you have viable thread support from your C++ system,
that'll never be an issue.  That was a premise in my original
posting, as I recall:  the C++ exception runtime interacts in
the natural way with the POSIX cancellation interface (i.e. the
destructors are the C++ version of the C "cleanup handlers").

Admittedly POSIX.1c doesn't have a C++ binding yet.  But the
rationale makes clear what's intended:  use the language's
native exception handling facilities to handle cancellation.

> But, that's my point exactly!  If it's easy to forget the catch clause,
> then it is even easier to forget to rectify the state of the shared
> data.

These go together in all good MT-aware programming styles, just like
policies like "mutex state isn't changed by function calls".  As with
all style guidelines, they can be broken if you know what you're doing;
I tend to call that "rocket science mode".

- Dave