On Tuesday, 12 January 2021 at 11:28:12 UTC, ludo wrote:
Ok, I agree that ends up being a kind of strange singleton. But yes it was D v1 code. Do we agree that the following multi-threaded singleton pattern is the proper way as of today.
It looks fine to me. The D wiki has the following example which prevents the need for entering the synchronized block more than once per thread: https://wiki.dlang.org/Low-Lock_Singleton_Pattern
I should note that the example doesn't specify the value as shared, which technically isn't the correct thing to do, but `shared` itself can be a bit of an annoyance. However, you do need to ensure that your static variable is either shared or __gshared, otherwise it becomes thread-local.
If I understand, as of today an AA init depends on a runtime function for historical reasons. A bit weird for an array indeed perfectly known at compile time, but someday some core language contributor will have a look at it, I guess.
Maybe in 5 years' time we'll get an uneventful discussion on it where it'd take 2 years to come to a conclusion before another year for it to actually be implemented.
If I understand well, this will accomplish the goal quoted with no further comestics needed! Only one keyword over explicitely using object mutex. Am I right?
I believe so. I've never used OpenAL so it may have additional restrictions with multithreading, but from a simple "This function is only ever executed on one thread at a time", your above suggestions should work.
Apologies for the late reply.
