Subject: Re: [boost] c++03 library survey
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 14:04:00
On 08/28/18 16:55, degski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 16:10, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> This mostly relates to Boost.Atomic and the answer is absolutely not.
> Boost.Atomic offers extended functionality compared to std::atomic, it
> is a potential playground for future extensions that may end up in the
> standard library.
> Then the right way forward, IMO, is to create boost::atomic v2 and bring
> v1 back to the std. One of the problems people run into is that things
> are quite similar, but not the same. v2 can then support, and continue
> to support the non-std features (and be a play-ground for new features).
Why would anyone want two Boost.Atomic libraries? And what is the use of
v1, which, presumably, would be equivalent to std::atomic?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk