[cpp-threads] Sequential Consistency redux

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 08:50:11PM +0000, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Nov 18 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Mark Batty wrote:
> >
> >My earlier response was wrong; Mark is correct.  Perhaps the
> >easiest way to explain this is in terms of the "happens before"
> >relation.
> 
> Thank both of you.  I am convinced.  I suppose that I should congratulate
> the authors for producing something both as precise and as inscrutable
> as the Algol 68 Report :-)

;-)

> Amusingly, this case shows that the note in 1.10p12 is misleading, and
> is therefore inappropriate!  Notes are there for clarification, and
> that one doesn't clarify ....

What would you suggest as an alternative?  If I recall correctly,
the history is that one of the Cambridge guys (Mark Batty, I believe)
came up with a litmus test that was permitted in absence of 1.10p12.
This litmus test motivated the addition of 1.10p12.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul