Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 02:13:37 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
I agree for POD, but what classes where the synchronization is
encapsulated behind a virtual function call?
synchronization can make a shared reference "tail shared".
I agree, but that doesn't seem answer my question. Put another way, if I
have an interface I which is implemented by both a thread local class L
and a shared class S, then does some function F need to know about
whether the implementor of I is S or L?
Since a reference to thread local cannot be implicitly cast to shared,
then this scenario cannot happen - i.e. a shared function is not
covariant with an unshared one.
P.S. There will obviously be some interfaces S can't implement, but that
a separate issue.
Also, does this mean 'scope' as a type is going away?
Scope never was a type, it's a storage class.
Sorry for the confusion of terminology. However, you talk blog about
using the 'scope' keyword to support escape analysis, ettc. i.e. 'scope'
would become the 'const' of the shared-thread local-stack storage type
system. Is this still the plan?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
