From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-11-29 09:54:05
--- In boost_at_y..., "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_u...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_u...> wrote:
> > > From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > > > ... What is being created is an atomic counter,
> > > > not an atomic integer, and as a counter there's little need
for any
> > > > information other than < 0, == 0, > 0. So instead of using
the ++
> > > > and -- operators I'd define increment() and decrement()
methods and
> > > > gaurantee only the above comparisons to 0. This gives you
optimal
> > > > portability and should cover all real needs.
> > >
> > > The advantage of using ++ and -- is that raw integer types
support them.
> >
> > And are rarely (if ever) thread safe. So you're not helping
anybody
> > by duplicating the interface of raw integer types here, IMHO.
>
> And lots of code doesn't need to be thread safe. So it's nice if
> raw integers can satisfy our generic counter requirements. One
> alternative might be free increment and decrement functions that
> are specialized for integers and for atomic_counter.
This is one case where I'd be perfectly happy with free functions (in
fact the atomic_t class that was originally being toyed with for
Boost.Threads used free functions for the reasons you're pointing out
now). I just don't like the mathematic operators here, since they
suggest functionality that can't/won't exist.
Bill Kempf