26 Feb
2010
26 Feb
'10
9:05 a.m.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Daniel James wrote:
On 25 February 2010 20:16, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
I think, this would at least delay the official acceptance of Boost.Atomic, as there will be less spur for it to happen.
Since it looks unlikely that Boost.Atomic is going to put be up for review in the foreseeable future, delaying another library to encourage it would be counter productive.
Actually I was going to propose it for fast-path review once I find the time to restructure unit tests. Helge