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

From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-02 09:21:44

>> boost::interprocess::atomic.
>
> That name cannot be used in Boost.Atomic as it is reserved for 
> Boost.Interprocess.
>
> Atomics that are lock-free can already be used for inter-process 
> communication, so a hypothetical boost::interprocess::atomic would 
> largely duplicate boost::atomic. However, I'm open to the idea, if it 
> is significantly different from boost::atomic.

The obvious solution then is to use boost::atomic::interprocess ;-)

I do see value in having 2 different atomic types in different 
namespaces as the use case is different:
The "regular" atomic usually works. Once you need interprocess 
communication you use another type, not another member function.