On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:41:00 -0000, Sönke Ludwig
<slud...@outerproduct.org> wrote:
Am 11.11.2012 19:46, schrieb Alex Rønne Petersen:
Something needs to be done about shared. I don't know what, but the
current situation is -- and I'm really not exaggerating here --
laughable. I think we either need to just make it perfectly clear that
shared is for documentation purposes and nothing else, or, figure out an
alternative system to shared, because I don't see shared actually being
useful for real world work no matter what we do with it.
After reading Walter's comment, it suddenly seemed obvious that we are
currently using 'shared' the wrong way. Shared is just not meant to be
used on objects at all (or only in some special cases like
synchronization primitives). I just experimented a bit with a statically
checked library based solution and a nice way to use shared is to only
use it for disabling access to non-shared members while its monitor is
not locked. A ScopedLock proxy and a lock() function can be used for
this:
I had exactly the same idea:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k7orpj$1tt5$1...@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-op.wnnsrds954xghj:40puck.auriga.bhead.co.uk
But, then I went right back the other way:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k7orpj$1tt5$1...@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-op.wnnt4iyz54xghj:40puck.auriga.bhead.co.uk
I think we can definitely create a library solution like the one you
propose below, and it should work quite well. But, I reckon it would be
even nicer if the compiler did just a little bit of the work for us, and
we integrated with the built in synchronized statement. :)
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
