On 11/14/12 7:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 03:51:13 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I have no idea what we want to do about this situation though. Regardless of
what we do with memory barriers and the like, it has no impact on whether
casts are required. And I think that introducing the shared equivalent of
const would be a huge mistake, because then most code would end up being
written using that attribute, meaning that all code essentially has to be
treated as shared from the standpoint of compiler optimizations. It would
almost be the same as making everything shared by default again. So, as far
as I can see, casting is what we're forced to do.
Actually, I think that what it comes down to is that shared works nicely when
you have a type which is designed to be shared, and it encapsulates everything
that it needs. Where it starts requiring casting is when you need to pass it
to other stuff.
- Jonathan M Davis
TDPL 13.14 explains that inside synchronized classes, top-level shared
is automatically lifted.
Andrei
