<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 18:51, Tim Blechmann <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:tim@klingt.org">tim@klingt.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">&gt;&gt; If Boost.Lockfree will be accepted, it won&#39;t be merged into trunk before<br>
&gt;&gt; Boost.Atomic is accepted.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; That seems unnecessary.  Can&#39;t Boost.Lockfree simply include (a version<br>
&gt; of) Boost.Atomic as an implementation detail for now?<br>
<br>
</div>this would somehow mean to fork boost.atomic, move everying to a `namespace<br>
detail&#39;. might introduce some maintenance overhead to keep it in sync with the<br>
original library.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Excuse me if it&#39;s common knowledge around here, but I&#39;ve seen several libraries relying on boost.atomic that have been reviewed, </div><div>so may I ask : why haven&#39;t Boost.Atomic been reviewed yet? It looks like it&#39;s already finished and reliable...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Joël Lamotte</div></div>