Re: [boost] [atomic] Bikeshedding over address-free waiting/notifying operation names

...

boost::interprocess::atomic.

That name cannot be used in Boost.Atomic as it is reserved for Boost.Interprocess.

Atomics that are lock-free can already be used for inter-process communication, so a hypothetical boost::interprocess::atomic would largely duplicate boost::atomic. However, I'm open to the idea, if it is significantly different from boost::atomic.

The obvious solution then is to use boost::atomic::interprocess ;-) I do see value in having 2 different atomic types in different namespaces as the use case is different: The "regular" atomic usually works. Once you need interprocess communication you use another type, not another member function.