atomic_ref: P0019 Wording Proposal for LWG
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
discussion
subject - atomic_ref (P0019)
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 29
- Forks
- 26
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Take everything from the Atomic section in current working draft (post Jacksonville) and make a new atomic_ref section.
- Ask pointer vs by value on free functions
- Get help for wording of the fencing issue with respect to non-atomic data (is this covered by generic data races?)
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the Atomic section in the current working draft post Jacksonville and the proposal context in this issue. Work through the two checklist questions, including the wording and fencing concerns, with the relevant C++ committee guidance. Done means the existing Atomic material has been adapted into a coherent new atomic_ref section and both questions are resolved.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100