On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011 10:28:34 Debdatta wrote:
>> Let me get this straight. Instances are shared... and marking a class shared
>> marks all its members shared? If what you said were true, it would be
>> trivial to instantiate a class as both shared and unshared. Without any
>> duplication.
>>
>> class A
>> {
>> ///
>> }
>>
>> shared A sharedA = new A;
>> A unsharedA = new A;
>>
>> I don't can you elaborate your last post?
>
> Instantiating it isn't the hard part. You probably need a constructor which
> is
> shared, but that's not all that big a deal. The problem is that every member
> function that you want to call with a shared instance needs to be marked as
> shared (just like a member function which is called with a const instance
> must
> be marked as const). And while a const member function may work with both
> mutable and immutable instances, a shared member function will _only_ work
> with shared instances.
This seems wrong to me. If a function is callable in a shared scenario, why
would it not be callable in an unshared scenario? At worst depending on how
shared were implemented the call would be slower than an unshared version but
still entirely correct.
