[cpp-threads] Re: Weak vs Strong Atomics

[Lawrence Crowl]

On 5/5/07, Herb Sutter <hsutter at microsoft.com> wrote:
> I want an easy way to tell people in a short sound bite "don't even
> think about reaching into 'feature bag X.'" I would be happy if I can
> make 'feature bag X' be "named member functions of weak_atomic<T>" or
> "named nonmember functions on atomic<T>" (preferably in a subnamespace).

Got it.  Your desire is slightly stronger than Nick's, but the same in
essence.

> So the answer is it depends on the proposal? If I have to give a
> slide/page-long list of functions not to use, that's much less helpful.
> What would the proposal look like?

I haven't made a proposal beyond N2145 yet.  I wanted to tease out the
requirements and goals first.

-- 
Lawrence Crowl