🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Etay_Bogner-0901961008510001@metay.stil.scitex.com> Etay_Bogner@mail.stil.scitex.com (Etay Bogner) writes:

> >> Does the proposed ANSI standard say anything about throwing an exception
> >> from within a signal handler?  Is the resulting behavior safe and
> well-defined,
> >> or is it undefined or implementation-dependent?
> >> 
> 
> Again, I wonder why this passed the moderation ...
> 
> signal handlers is a C++ issue ? come on ...

Maybe it's time for another discussion about revising the moderation
policy.  I suggest that anyone who is interested in such a discussion
send mail to std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu, though: it doesn't really
belong in this group.

Under the current policy, at least, we almost always accept articles
asking whether the standard says anything about a subject.  There are
limits, but an article like that would have to get pretty outlandish
before we'd reject it.  I don't think it's ridiculous to wonder
whether the C++ standard says anything about signals or threads, or
whether it should; some languages, after all, do address those issues
specifically.  C++ simply doesn't happen to be one of them.

At present, the moderation policy (http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++)
doesn't have any absolute prohibition against FAQs or against
questions that could easily be answered by reading the draft standard.
Perhaps it should.  (Although there's always the question of just
where to draw the line...)  I'd be interested in hearing people's
comments on this issue.  Again, though, please email those comments to
std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]