On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 19:09:42 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
Elaborate on this... It's clearly over-ambitious if anything.
What issues am I failing to address? I'm creating a situation
where using
shared has a meaning, is safe, and doesn't require any unsafe
interactions,
no casts, etc, for users at any level above the bare metal
tooling... How
would you improve on that proposition?
No, your proposition is not the issue here. The problem I see
is the expectation people have with what shared is supposed to
do. I have the impression from reading in this forum about
shared that people expect that just putting a shared in front
of a variable will solve all the concurrency problems in
existance.
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
When shared stood up in its current form, expectation was made
"this will be threadsafe automatically - we'll figure out how in
the future". Because it works for global variables. But it
doesn't seem like an expectation we can deliver on.
(I have no direct reference to this but that was certainly my
impression)
Your proposition doesn't want to address this utopic goal and
that is a good thing imo. Adding that restriction that you
propose makes explicit what was implied but not clearly stated
until now.
I'm not good enough in D to add more than a meta reflexion on
the subject so I will not follow up on that. I often have the
impression that a lot of things are going slower than necessary
because a mentality where the perfect is in the way of good.
