From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0989BC6C
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:12:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7SFCf2A017593
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:12:41 +0200
Received: from [172.25.129.161] [38.96.172.125] by janestcapital.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD-9.10) id AB8406F8; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:13:08 -0400
Message-ID: <46D43B68.1000206@janestcapital.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:12:40 -0400
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Fischer <robert@fischerventure.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Has the thread cancellation problem evolved ?
References: <9FA25C33-04DD-46BD-8959-873DDD2FFF82@epfl.ch>	<1188055755.10796.37.camel@rosella.wigram>	<1188257636.7533.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<BF8C1117-83A3-46AA-82C4-EC9D96E51F69@epfl.ch>	<5EB9CEB2-3B79-4652-B6D1-10FEEC8E55E5@mac.com> <46D432CA.8010708@janestcapital.com> <46D4370C.1000305@fischerventure.com>
In-Reply-To: <46D4370C.1000305@fischerventure.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46D43B69.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 dated:98 signaling:98 signaling:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 stack:01 rec:01 rec:01 exception:01 exception:01 caml-list:01 expression:02 behaves:02 arg:03 

Robert Fischer wrote:

> Brian Hurt wrote:
>
>> So what happens if I throw an infinite loop into an exception handler?
>
> Now, my experience with .Net is somewhat dated, but I'm pretty sure it 
> re-hangs on your loop, and signaling another abort will break out of 
> your loop and continue up the chain of exception handlers.  At least 
> once upon a time, there was a very large business which I worked for 
> that did a lot of concurrent .Net work, and the standard solution was 
> to keep signaling the abort until the thing finally died.
>
> ~~ Robert.
>
>
Until you get someone "clever", who does something like (in Ocaml):

let rec do_my_work () =
    try
       do_a_bunch_of_work ()
    with
    | Thread_abort_exception ->
       (* Ack!  Someone tried to kill me!  I refuse to die! *)
       do_my_work ()
;;

I suppose eventually you'd blow stack.

Then, there's the what-if:

let rec example () =
    try
       do_a_bunch_of_work ()
    with
    | Thread_abort_exception ->
       raise (Invalid_arg "Ack!  They got me!")
;;

i.e. what happens if my catch expression raises another (different) 
exception?

Not to mention the fact that this solution requires a rather intrusive 
change to the run time, and a special exception which behaves 
differently from every other exception.

Brian