27 Jun
2013
27 Jun
'13
6:47 p.m.
Le 26/06/13 21:56, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
On Wednesday 26 June 2013 15:39:27 you wrote: Also, if it's not too late yet:
4. Could synchronized_value be renamed to just synchronized? Besides being shorter, this naming seems to be aligned with optional and reads more naturally. Consider:
optional< int > oi; synchronized< queue< int > > sqi;
I could change it if there is an agreement of the Boost community. Vicente