Jason House Wrote: > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one trying to use shared. I tried to use it > with 2.031 and rapidly hit bug after bug... I submitted several bug reports > for basic functionality, and none of it appeared in the changelog. > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3089
shared methods no longer trigger errors in 2.032, this issue should be marked as fixed, it must be a side effect from fixing another issue. > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3090 I just made a quick template this seems to work in 2.032: immutable template isShared(T) { static if(is(T U : shared U)) bool isShared = true; else bool isShared = false; } > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3091 This one still isn't solved, I too found it annoying that you cant use 'new shared Foo()'. You can however declare Foo as 'shared class Foo', this works just like 'immutable class' or 'const class' by marking all properties and members with the qualifier. As a side note, I would like the same behavior for 'static class'. However using 'shared class' is not always the wanted behavior, you may only want a subset of the members and properties to be shared. We also miss a unique qualifier to allow unshared objects to be used in shared contexts without the need for shared methods. It's also awkward to use, const members may be called from either const or mutable objects. Shared members must be called from shared objects, so why allow a class to have shared and unshared members, if all instances are going to be shared anyways? It makes it much harder to draw the line between shared and unshared; you may have only a few objects actually shared, but you are required to make all the other objects they may use shared, even if they are synchronized or unique. This makes all the other contexts these objects are used in as shared, and soon your entire program is shared.
