Subject: Re: [boost] c++03 library survey
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 14:34:58
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 17:04, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ... would be equivalent to std::atomic?
>
For that specific reason, yes. So, when your organization then eventually
in 2030 (or so) moves to a compiler and STL that supports std::atomic,
atomic is guaranteed to work without issue, while at the same time you can
provide the play-ground you might like to have.
degski
-- *“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein* *“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth" - Rudolph W. L. Giuliani*