26 Jul
2011
26 Jul
'11
4:32 p.m.
on Mon Jul 25 2011, "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson-AT-intel.com> wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Jul 24 2011, "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev-AT-chezphil.org> wrote:
If Tim did that then we would need to review it now, right?
Only its implementation, not its interface or documentation.
(For correctness, anyway. Not necessarily for its interface. But that doesn't make much difference in practice, since the interface is supposed to be the std:: one.)
yes.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, wouldn't that make a separate review of atomic un-necessary?
Not if it were to become a first class, outside-of-detail, Boost library. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com