From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-20 07:16:58
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>
> > I don't agree with you. I think that atomic_counter's underlying
> > is: "it's just like the good old long type, except you need not protect
> > when multiple threads are involved".
> I'll let Peter speak to what the philosophy is, but I believe
> atomic_counter should be as simple and fast as possible, doing
> one thing and doing it well. If you also want an atomic_integer
> then go for it.
Agreed. The philosophy is 'simple and fast thread-safe reference count',
with a primary 'client' being shared_ptr.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk