Subject: Re: [boost] atomic_count::operator++ return type
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-13 14:28:38
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ:
> But maybe we're diverting off a bit. Given the current constraints, I've
> got a protocol that could be implemented with an extension to the
> interface of atomic_count::op++. Is this a reasonable thing to ask, or are
> there unavoidable obstacles to have it?
It is reasonable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk