On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 06:49:06 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 06:26:30 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-10-15 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
That may be worrisome. Any information on how many are using
DWT, and
how badly it would break if we pulled the change?
If we assess there's too much breakage, we can define a DIP
and make the
check opt-in via a flag -dipNN.
I would like to add that the impact of a possible breakage
depends on what the alternative is. If a function in Phobos or
druntime is provided with the same functionality, then the
breakage have less of an impact.
As far as I understand topic is about deprecating direct field
access of synchronized classes, method calls in synhronized
classes and `synchronized () {}` blocks will remain untouched.
That clarifies things. It seems a fine idea. I can't think of an
instance where it would be advisable to have public mutable
fields in a synchronized class. Immutable or const though, sure.
