On Sunday, November 18, 2012 05:51:00 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > On 18-11-2012 05:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > I don't know if we can answer this for sure at the moment given the > > ongoing > > discussion on shared, but looking at core.sync, it occurred to me that > > there's a major problem with the classes in there. None of the work with > > shared. And unless I'm missing something here, I don't see how many of > > them are even useful as anything other than shared. After all, what good > > is a mutex which is thread-local? But none of the methods on Mutex or its > > friends are shared. > > > > So, the question is should the all have their methods shared? And if they > > should, is there any reason to have non-shared overloads for them? What > > good are they as anything other than shared? How is anyone using them > > right now? > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Not at this point in time. It would break a ridiculous amount of code if > we did this, given the current extremely annoying nature of shared. > > Most D code I have seen in the wild just shares mutexes, conditions, etc > with __gshared or some other mechanism anyway, so I don't think there's > anything to gain. Like, what would shared actually buy you here?
__gshared is a good reason for leaving non-shared overloads, but isn't code really supposed to be using shared and not __gshared unless it's specifically extern(C)? That being the case, I'd expect shared to be the correct thing to use with mutexes normally, and right now, that won't work without a ton of casting or adding shared overloads. - Jonathan M Davis
