Subject: Re: Points raised on EWG reflector
From: Michael L. Scott (mlscott_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-22 15:44:47
On Sep 22, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Hans Boehm via SG5 <sg5_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> EWG reflector discussions raised another couple of points, which I had lost track of:
> Tony Van Eerd pointed out that we probably want exceptions escaping from a transaction to be UB rather than implementation defined, since the semantics have been regularly debated. We don't really want some implementations supporting commit, and others abort semantics. Code just shouldn't rely on that. I tend to agree with that observation.
I agree as well.
> There was also discussion of somehow providing a capture list for transactions, as in lambda's. I'm less confident I understand that proposal.
Interesting. Perhaps the idea is that the code should explicitly document what it is that the transaction touches? Thatâs a tempting idea, but probably not as useful as one might hope for linked data structures, where what may be modified is the _reach_ of the capture.
> SG5 mailing list
SG5 list run by email@example.com
Older Archives on Google Groups