Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 12:32:19
on Mon Jul 25 2011, "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson-AT-intel.com> wrote:
> 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?
Not if it were to become a first class, outside-of-detail, Boost
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com