On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 21:49:48 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 02:35:43 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 02/12/2016 09:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Const could also mean mutable. This can hence reference the
same data as
both shared and unshared, which violates the type system.
If const comes from mutable, then shared is superfluous
leading to extra synchronization. That's suboptimal, but how
does it violate the type system? -- Andrei
It violates the expectations that if an object is not shared,
it could not possibly be modified from another thread.
All threads must agree on a protocol in order for synchronization
to work correctly.
Say thread A has a non-shared ref to an object and thread B has a
shared ref to it. What good is this shared qualifier for B when A
doesn't honor it?
