Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments

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.)
> 
> yes.

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.

Regards,
Luke