On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 13:40:54 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
simplicity and lack of ambition that is criticized the most.
shared is a clusterfuck, according to what I gathered from
the forum, I never had yet to use it in my code. Manu's idea
makes it a little less of a clusterfuck, and people attack
the idea because it doesn't solve all and everything that's
wrong with shared. Funny.
Elaborate on this... It's clearly over-ambitious if anything.
What issues am I failing to address?
First of all, you called it "shared", but what your concept
describes is "theadsave".
If you had called it the later, it would have been clear to
everybody that thread local data is indeed automatically
threadsave, because only one thread has access to it (that
"implicit conversion"). But if something is "shared" (in the
common-world sense), it is of course no more "threadsave" - you
have to implement special methods to treat it.
Conflating "shared" and "threadsave" in that manner was, I
think, the biggest mistake of your proposal.
He talked about it in a previous thread, and generally I would
agree with him that such conflation is indeed beneficial provided
that some concessions are made for `shared`. Moreover, yet
another attribute? Please no...
struct X {
void foo(threadsafe const shared Bar* bar) @nogc @trusted
notrhow pure const shared threadsafe;
}
Attribute explosion is bad enough already.
