Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-25 18:09:22
Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Jul 24 2011, "Phil Endecott"
> <spam_from_boost_dev-AT-chezphil.org> wrote:
>> If Tim did that then we would need to review it now, right?
> Only its implementation, not its interface or documentation.
>> (For correctness, anyway. Not necessarily for its interface. But
>> that doesn't make much difference in practice, since the interface is
>> supposed to be the std:: one.)
Taking this to its logical conclusion, wouldn't that make a separate review of atomic un-necessary?
I personally feel that both lockfree and atomic should be accepted in principle, but don't feel fully qualified to review either. I think the most important thing is that there be active maintainers for both libraries so that when issues come up they are fixed. More than a review, atomic needs a maintainer. Lockfree, I am already convinced, is in good hands. If the lockfree maintainer is willing to maintain atomic as an implementation detail, why not as a stand alone library? If so, let's accept both at once and put atomic on the offical list of boost libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk