[cpp-threads] Revised Atomic Paper

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:46 -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Hm.  Maybe you've been reviewing an earlier draft.  Caught that one
> > > as well.
> >
> > The version I'm looking at is the only one I saw posted here, dated
> > 2007-08-01.
> 
> I was looking at the published version, which is a bit different from
> the posted version.

I'm sorry, I have got behind on reading and I missed the publication.

> > > > The following sentences in the paragraph should be deleted.
> > >
> > > Which sentences?  I'm no longer confident in what I might guess.
> >
> > "Therefore, there is a single wait-free query per type. However, the
> > proposal defines operations on the atomic_flag type to be wait-free."
> 
> I'm not convinced that the sentences should  be deleted, but there
> is clearly a problem with the wording.

"Therefore, there is a single lock-free query per type" seems to imply
that lock-free-ness is a type attribute, contrary to paragraph 3.

"However, the proposal defines operations on the atomic_flag type to be
lock-free" seems to be redundant with paragraph 5.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
For every complex problem
there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/attachments/20070816/1d449db7/attachment.pgp