shared - i need it to be useful

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 10/16/18 6:24 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> OK, so here is where I think I misunderstood your point. When you said 
>> a lock-free queue would be unusable if it wasn't shared, I thought you 
>> meant it would be unusable if we didn't allow the implicit cast. But I 
>> realize now, you meant you should be able to use a lock-free queue 
>> without it being actually shared anywhere.
>>
>> What I say to this is that it doesn't need to be usable. I don't care 
>> to use a lock-free queue in a thread-local capacity. I'll just use a 
>> normal queue, which is easy to implement, and doesn't have to worry 
>> about race conditions or using atomics. A lock free queue is a special 
>> thing, very difficult to get right, and only really necessary if you 
>> are going to share it. And used for performance reasons!
> 
> I think this comes up where the queue was originally shared, you 
> acquired a lock on the thing it is a member of, and you want to continue 
> using it through your exclusive reference.
> 

Isn't that a locking queue? I thought we were talking lock-free?

-Steve