https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
moonlightsenti...@disroot.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #14 from anonymous4 ---
(In reply to Marco Leise from comment #13)
> No it is not fine, because if we agree that top level qualifiers are free to
> change after a copy, and it seems sensible to say that the shared status of
> a copy is opt
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #13 from Marco Leise ---
(In reply to anonymous4 from comment #12)
> (In reply to Marco Leise from comment #10)
> > You can tell where I'm going: Copy a shared reference counting struct and it
> > is no longer shared except for the data it
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #12 from anonymous4 ---
(In reply to Marco Leise from comment #10)
> You can tell where I'm going: Copy a shared reference counting struct and it
> is no longer shared except for the data it references.
If you can solve it for const, the s
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #11 from Marco Leise ---
Uh, I think I just contradicted my two years younger self from the linked bug
report. I guess whether or not `stdout` (or any reference counter) should use
atomic operations must not depend on whether the struct it
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #10 from Marco Leise ---
Thanks for the clarification. Shared has never been fully fleshed out. What we
can currently take away from the specification is this:
"8.8 shared Attribute
The shared attribute modifies the type from T to
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #9 from anonymous4 ---
It might own the struct, but not the referenced data. Again example is
reference counter: destruction can depend on sharing. Another example is that
shared data can't be (de)allocated with thread local allocator.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #8 from Marco Leise ---
The implication is that when a thread destroys an object it already uniquely
owns it.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
anonymous4 changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
--- Comment #7 from anonymous4 ---
(In reply to weaselcat from comment #4)
> on topic:
> a shared destructor doesn't really make sense at all, shouldn't shared
> objects just have unshared destructors?
It means implicit cast from shared to unshared, w
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
Atila Neves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlqu...@optonline.net
--- Comment #6 from Atila
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com
--- Commen
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
weaselcat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r9shacklef...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from wease
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
weaselcat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlevenf...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from weaselca
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
weaselcat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marco.le...@gmx.de
--- Comment #2 from weaselcat
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #1 from
16 matches
Mail list logo