On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 08:29:55 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
What you will probably need to do is to not try and use the same type as both shared and non-shared if it has a destructor.
Unfortunately this option would require an unrealistic lot of refactoring for me. I'm basically using this thing as a drop-in replacement for arrays, so they go everywhere. I use array-based swap buffers to transfer data between threads. I have to declare the buffers shared, which makes the arrays shared. This problem only emerged when I decided I wanted them to free on destruction, so it looks like I'll be sticking with manual free for awhile longer.
I would however suggest that you report this as a bug, since it really should be able to distinguish between shared and unshared destructors.
Would it be considered a duplicate of https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12004 ? At least, all of my use cases agree with the bug filer's argument against having any shared dtors.
shared is a great concept, but we are going to need a few adjustments to its design in order to make it properly, fully useable.
Agreed. It's given me a few headaches in the past, but I do like the idea of a transitive qualifier that helps me identify potentially racy data.
