On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Graham Wakefield
<lists@...> wrote:
> You could use the terminology 'wait-free' instead to transcend the issue?
> Though it seems that your reviewer is wrongfully assigning purpose of TAS to
> locks, instead of seeing TAS as necessary to locks.

Yes, I only read recently that there is a subtle difference in the
semantics of wait-free and lock-free. I'll have to look into it a bit
deeper, perhaps wait-free is a better description. I think one
implies the other, but not the other way around.

Steve