spir Wrote: > (I have few exp in the paradigm, so don't believe me.) > > It seems your problem is a typical case that cannot be safe as is. > Essentially, > IIUC, you want a shared set of data to be fed (more generally: mutated) from > a > thread, while another thread (here, the main one) processes bits of it. How > can > this be correct as is --except as you say if mutating operations were atomic? > I think in such a case you /must/ have a communication protocal between both > tasks/threads. It is not due to language features (present ot not, this or > that > way) but to the problem itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Well I think that this is the model that goroutines lend them selves to. You have a producer input into a channel and a consumer on another thread/machine. To get such a behavior your don't need a language feature, but as of yet D does not have anything exactly comparable.
