[cpp-threads] Re: Weak vs Strong Atomics

[Lawrence Crowl]

On 5/4/07, Herb Sutter <hsutter at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Lawrence wrote:
> > So, grepping for function calls would satisfy your concerns?
> >
> > Herb, would that work for you?
>
> In B', we also had inheritance between weak_atomic<T> and
> atomic<T>. By "that" above, are you referring to replacing a subtype
> relationship with named conversion functions? If so, I think that
> works for me, and I always like something that's greppable.

I meant something different.  You concern, as I understand it, is that
you don't want people to accidently use the weak operations.  If the
weak operations were syntactically distinct and greppable, so that one
had simple rules and static tools to enforce those rules, would you
be satisfied?

-- 
Lawrence Crowl