On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:33:03 -0400, Sergei Nosov <sergei.no...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, is my understanding correct? If yes, why the path with memory
barriers was "announced", but not taken?
Having recently acquired (no pun intended) new knowledge on how hard
memory races are to solve with language syntax and primitives, I can
appreciate that there isn't a silver bullet way to do this.
BUT, shared should be something more than just a way to modify a type to
say "DON'T USE ME, I SUCK!" I think we need one more mechanism to fix
this. Something that allows one to move data from shared to unshared in a
reliable and provable way. Because really, you never want to directly
work with shared data without claiming and proving ownership of the data,
even if temporarily.
-Steve
