>>We clearly agree completely; this is exactly what I'm saying in the paragraph you >>quoted below. What i'm*also* saying is that the 'incorrectness' of it is harmless >>in practice - so I'm not sure that it should be forbidden, and handled specially >>(which would be necessary in the inferred-purity cases).
but it makes no sense to cripple an feature like pure half-way - pure is clean and well defined (still not perfect) - but you talking about making it very stupid and sensless "'incorrectness' of it is harmless in practice" ... "Yes, they can be used incorrectly, but I'd expect anybody working with shared to know what they're doing" - no they don't - sorry, haven't you any real experience in the threading world or why don't you see the problems introdcing shared in pure
