On 9/14/18 11:06 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
It also affects attrs brought through definitions though:
shared class foo {
int a; // automatically shared cuz of the above line of code
__not(shared) int b; // no longer shared
}
Aside from Jonathan's point, which I agree with, that the cost(bool)
mechanism would be preferable in generic code (think not just negating
existing attributes, but determining how to forward them), the above is
different then just negation.
Making something unshared *inside* something that is shared breaks
transitivity, and IMO the above simply would be the same as not having
any attribute there.
In other words, I would expect:
shared foo f;
static assert(is(typeof(f.b)) == shared(int));
I'm not sure how the current behavior works, but definitely wanted to
clarify that we can't change something like that without a major
language upheaval.
-Steve
