On 1/11/21 12:26 PM, Arafel wrote:
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I think this mixing of types and
storage classes makes a very unfortunate combination:
```
import std;
int i = 0;
shared int j = 0;
struct S {
int i = 0;
shared int j = 0;
}
S s;
void main() {
i = 1;
j = 1;
s.i = 1;
s.j = 1;
spawn(&f);
}
void f() {
assert(i == 0); // Expected
assert(j == 1); // Expected
assert(s.i == 0); // Expected
assert(s.j == 0); // Wait, what?
}
```
I agree that once you know the inner workings it makes sense, but a
naïve approach might suggest that `s.j` would be... well, shared, just
like `j`.
It's definitely confusing, if you don't know what shared means in all
contexts.
shared as storage -> put in the shared globals
shared as type -> the thing can be shared between threads.
The second meaning does not mean it's automatically shared, just that
it's shareable.
-Steve
