Re: [atomic] Bikeshedding over address-free waiting/notifying operation names

From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-01 12:05:41

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> As some of you may know, C++20 added new waiting/notifying operations to 
> std::atomic: wait, notify_one and notify_all. These operations are not 
> address-free, i.e. their implementation is allowed to use process-local 
> addresses of the atomics as keys. In particular, it means you can't use 
> them for inter-process communication.

That's useful to know!

> In Boost.Atomic I intend to provide address-free variants as well, where 
> possible, and I'm thinking about the naming scheme for them. Currently, 
> I'm using the "_address_free" suffix, so we have wait_address_free, 
> notify_one_address_free and notify_all_address_free. The "address-free" 
> term comes from the C++ standard, but the resulting names seem a bit 
> long. Maybe there are better suggestions?

boost::interprocess::atomic.

P.S. it's not "bikeshedding", names are important.

Regards, Phil.