On 14.06.24 16:33, Boqun Feng wrote: > 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. How would this be different with `Atomic<i32>` and `Atomic<i64>`? Just because the underlying `Atomic<I>` type is generic shouldn't change this, right? --- Cheers, Benno
