On 2014-04-01, at 16:17, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify my position a bit more, I think criticizing my position by > pretending that I'm advocating for a brain-off way of programming with > atomics is a bit contrived. I definitely understand that atomics require > special feeding and care. What's under debate is whether we should make that > obvious to authors and reviewers by not conflating things such as operator++ > etc. to work on both atomic and non-atomic types. I don’t think that the pushback is based on the fact that code using Atomic<uint32_t> is at least as thread safe as code using uint32_t. As is, someone reading code is likely to see threading errors that are actually safe due to use of Atomic<>. The opposite - missing a real error - happens because we are human. It doesn’t seem more or less likely if you require the more explicit syntax. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
