On Thursday, November 15, 2012 03:51:13 Jonathan M Davis wrote: > I have no idea what we want to do about this situation though. Regardless of > what we do with memory barriers and the like, it has no impact on whether > casts are required. And I think that introducing the shared equivalent of > const would be a huge mistake, because then most code would end up being > written using that attribute, meaning that all code essentially has to be > treated as shared from the standpoint of compiler optimizations. It would > almost be the same as making everything shared by default again. So, as far > as I can see, casting is what we're forced to do.
Actually, I think that what it comes down to is that shared works nicely when you have a type which is designed to be shared, and it encapsulates everything that it needs. Where it starts requiring casting is when you need to pass it to other stuff. - Jonathan M Davis
