Thread-, Signal- and Cancellation-safety documentation

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 06/10/2013 10:08 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>> If you wish to see a formal proof, why don't you (1) provide a proper
>>> definition and (2) *prove* that it doesn't have loopholes that render
>>> it useless?
>>
>> Because I'm not the one who's claiming there's a problem in the
>> standard.  The burden of showing that is yours, not mine.
> 
> It seems indeed like I can't explain the issues that I see in the
> standard's definition to you.  It would be helpful if at this point in
> the discussion, others can chime.

Someone needs to be responsible for summarizing the results
of the discussion into something that others can comment
on more usefully, either a patch against Alex's branch or
a wiki page with a definition.

Cheers,
Carlos.