From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-16 10:12:03
Clark S. Cox III wrote:
> A couple of questions:
>
> Is there any rational behind the fact that boost::detail::atomic_count
> doesn't have a default constructor?
The interface is specified in a way that makes 'int' or 'long' meet its
requirements, so that one can typedef atomic_count to int/long in ST builds.
> For what reason is atomic_count an implementation detail, and not
> available for general use? (i.e. why is it in boost::detail, and not
> boost::)
It wasn't considered ready for public consumption. An atomic operations
library is hard to get right, as both interface and implementation, which is
why we still don't have one in Boost. I think that we've now reached a
degree of understanding that will make it possible to specify and implement
one. So we should have one by 1.36, maybe even 1.35 if we hurry up. :-)