[cpp-threads] Implicit Synchronization

[Doug Lea]

Boehm, Hans wrote:
> 
> 
> My sense is that moving completely to the (safer, more expensive) Java
> volatile semantics will make some people here very unhappy.  Providing all
> the current alternatives, but making the safer ones easier to spell, seems to
> be the best compromise.  

As an indication that you might be right (or else many of us are wrong :-)
we've been discussing filling in the remaining  holes in
Java atomics support that are likely (although not until Java 7) to
be basically isomorphic to your current C++ version. I guess the
main difference is that getting some of almost-never-useful ones in
Java will be so awkward that no one could write them that way by mistake.

-Doug