3 Dec
2009
3 Dec
'09
6:01 p.m.
Andrey Semashev wrote:
Helge Bahmann wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Vicente Botet Escriba wrote:
I'm not sure if the free-standing functions are of too much value (personally I dislike them for C++), I will certainly add them if someone wants them, but probably it would be preferrable for them not to live in the root namespace "boost".
I think, free standing functions can be useful if one needs to operate on a POD type (which atomic<T> isn't). For example, one could safely use functions with local statics. _____________________________________________ I believe Helge's plan was to provide an implementation of C++-0x atomics - PODs are not part of the 'atomic' interface - so I would vote against PODs.