On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:59:58AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Does this make sense? > > Implementation-wise, if you think it is simpler or more clear/elegant > to have the extra lower level layer, then that sounds fine. > > However, I was mainly talking about what we would eventually expose to > users, i.e. do we want to provide `Atomic<T>` to begin with? If yes, The truth is I don't know ;-) I don't have much data on which one is better. Personally, I think AtomicI32 and AtomicI64 make the users have to think about size, alignment, etc, and I think that's important for atomic users and people who review their code, because before one uses atomics, one should ask themselves: why don't I use a lock? Atomics provide the ablities to do low level stuffs and when doing low level stuffs, you want to be more explicit than ergonomic. That said, I keep an open mind on `Atomic<T>`, maybe it will show its value at last. But right now, I'm not convinced personally. > then we could make the lower layer private already. > > We can defer that extra layer/work if needed even if we go for > `Atomic<T>`, but it would be nice to understand if we have consensus > for an eventual user-facing API, or if someone has any other opinion > or concerns on one vs. the other. > Yes, that'll be great. I'd love to see others' inputs! Regards, Boqun > Cheers, > Miguel
