> On Feb 24, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The only way you can make atomics sort-of-work in Swift today is by 
> performing atomic operations on manually-allocated memory, since Swift 
> doesn't provide the necessary control over any memory the language manages to 
> get the guarantees you need. When we get the ownership model, you could then 
> model atomics as *shared* borrowed values (as opposed to the *exclusive* 
> borrowing required by `inout` today); 

I went with ‘mutating’ there because it’s the only way to make any of it 
compile at the moment, but I do agree that it makes limited sense as is; I 
presume that is why `_stdlib_AtomicInt` is a class, then.

Cheers,
Guillaume Lessard

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to