On Sunday, 26 January 2014 at 17:15:10 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Since shared hasn't change much in the last years, I assume it
is somewhat accepted in its current state. My understanding is
that if something cannot be attributed to a single thread, it
is "shared". So far so good.
Now I wrote an object pool struct with two properties: it can
be used by multiple threads during its lifetime and this(this)
is disabled. Logically the struct is both created and
destroyed while only the creator thread (which holds the data)
has access to it and there is no two ways about it. An
object can only be destroyed when it is no longer shared.
Yet the D compiler asks for a shared ~this(). This sounds as
if it asks me to commit a logical error. So the question is,
how do I define a shared struct without a shared ~this() which
would be broken by definition?
I ran into this issue some time ago too.
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8295
Walter stated in a discussion on the newsgroup that this is by
design. It basically came down to, that shared structs should not
be destroyed ...
Although I really don't agree with this, it should be fixed. In
my opinion it should not be neccessary to have a shared
destructor, because as soon as it is destroyed, it is no longer
shared. So no special shared destructor should be neccessary.
