[concurrency-interest] Re: AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number
Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:54:39 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
> Of Larry Riedel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:32 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [concurrency-interest] Re: AtomicInteger and
> AtomicLong should implement Number
> My perspective is that a sine qua non of this thread
> ("AtomicInteger and AtomicLong should implement Number") is
> the idea of assumption of the type of the guarded/wrapped
> entity by the class of wrapper object.
The type of the guarded object is a mutable primitive value. By your
argument, the type of the wrapper is also, conceptually, a mutable
primitive. But mutable things have no place in hashing and sorting
algorithms. Ergo: atomics should not provide value-based comparison.
> > I claim that there is not a single legitimate use of value-based
> > comparison methods for AtomicX classes, and this claim so
> far has not
> > been proven wrong.
> Such an opinion cannot be proved right or wrong.
If it was wrong, it would be easy to prove just by showing a