[cpp-threads] Implicit Conversion for Atomics

[Peter Dimov]

> In the October 2007 C++ meeting in Kona, I agreed to write up
> a paper on the issues with implicit conversion operators on the
> atomic types.  My first draft is attached.

You state in the "hides cost" section that

    An atomic store is generally more expensive than an atomic load.

Is this indeed true for the seq_cst constraint?

I'd also add that

    Implicit Load Encourages SC-focused Presentations

although, to be honest, so do the default memory_order_seq_cst arguments. 
I'd certainly prefer it if articles and papers state the minimal memory 
ordering requirements for each atomic op, instead of just assuming SC.