Maxim Egorushkin wrote: > > "Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Maxim Egorushkin wrote: > > > > > > "Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Maxim Egorushkin wrote: > > > > > > > > [... "ala Alexandrescu" volatiles ...] > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE84807.DD00F4D0%40web.de > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE861E5.13B60F31%40web.de > > > > (Subject: Re: volatile keyword usage philosophy (long!)) > > > > > > Sorry, I failed to figure out the point in that topics. > > > > That's okay. > > But I'd love to :). Is the Alexandrescu's idea of using volatile keyword for > designating thread safe member functions somewhat "brain damaged"?
"Yeah, exactly." http://google.com/groups?selm=3f01e07b%40usenet01.boi.hp.com (Subject: Re: Does anyone think 'volatile' is a platform-independent way to make variable access thread safe?) Check out this entire thread. Follow the links. ;-) regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
