----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Green" <green@[...].au> 
>  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
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost