Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Mention the status of atomicints #2150

Closed
AlexDaniel opened this issue Jul 5, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Mention the status of atomicints #2150

AlexDaniel opened this issue Jul 5, 2018 · 5 comments
Labels
docs Documentation issue (primary issue type)

Comments

@AlexDaniel
Copy link
Member

AlexDaniel commented Jul 5, 2018 •
edited

According to committable, atomicints are available since rakudo 2017.08, and I think this should be mentioned. Otherwise someone using 2017.07 (which isn't even 1 year old) may be surprised that atomicints won't work with their setup.

By the way, does anybody know why atomicints are available with use v6.c and not just in v6.d.PREVIEW?
@jnthn
Copy link
Contributor

jnthn commented Jul 5, 2018

By the way, does anybody know why atomicints are available with use v6.c and not just in v6.d.PREVIEW?

Yes. They are used inside of the 6.c setting in order to implement a number of other concurrency primitives that are very decidedly available in 6.c. Thus they were put in the 6.c setting to make them available for that. Same goes for Lock::Async, which backs the Supply concurrency model.

@JJ JJ changed the title Mention the status of atomitcints Mention the status of atomicints Jul 6, 2018
@JJ
Copy link
Contributor

JJ commented Jul 6, 2018

atomicints have their very own page. Do you mean add something to the tune of when they started to work?

@JJ JJ added the docs Documentation issue (primary issue type) label Jul 6, 2018
@AlexDaniel
Copy link
Member Author

@JJ “Note: available in rakudo starting with release 2017.08”

JJ added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2018
@JJ
States when they were introduced.
f649193 
Refs #2150. I'm not sure if this is it, so not closing it for now.
@JJ
Copy link
Contributor

JJ commented Jul 7, 2018

@AlexDaniel Would what's been added be enough?

@AlexDaniel
Copy link
Member Author

@JJ yea

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
docs Documentation issue (primary issue type)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@JJ @jnthn @AlexDaniel