On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2013-10-10 02:22, Sean Kelly wrote: > >> Only that this would have to be communicated to the user, since moving data >> later is problematic. Today, I think it's common to construct an object as >> unshared and then cast it. > > What is the reason to not create it as "shared" in the first place?
The same as immutable--you may not have all the shared functions available to establish the desired state. But I'll grant that this is obviously way more common with immutable than shared.
