On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:00 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 12:26, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > ---
> > module borked;
> >
> > void atomicIncrement(int* p)@system{
> > import core.atomic;
> > atomicOp!("+=",int,int)(*cast(shared(int)*)p,1);
> > }
> >
> > struct Atomic(T)
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:50 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 22 October 2018 at 00:22:19 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > No no, they're repeated, not scattered, because I seem to have
> > to keep repeating it over and over, because nobody is reading
> > the text, or perhaps imag
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:30 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 02:54, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:40 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> >>> wr
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:30 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/22/2018 1:34 AM, Manu wrote:
> > I posted it, twice... 2 messages, back to back, and you're responding
> > to this one, and not that one. I'll post it again...
>
>
> Posting it over and over is illustrative of the fai
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 10:39, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> [...]
> > It's invalid only if Atomic.badboy exists.
>
> I don't agree. I prefer the stronger @trusted. As far as I know, t
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:05 PM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> It took me a while to understand Manu's idea for `shared`, and I suspect
> that it was/is the same for others. At the same time, Manu seems
> bewildered about the objections. I'm going to try and summarize the
> situation. Maybe
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:55 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 11:58 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Thank you, Timon, for a nice explanation of what I was trying to express.
You removed whatever comment you're referring to.
I don't understand any of Timon's posts i
Third time's the charm maybe?
- repeated, 3rd time
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:55 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> > This is an unfair dismissal.
>
> It has nothing at all to do with fairness. It is
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:50 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 5:54 PM, Manu wrote:
> > Would you please respond to my messages, and specifically, respond to
> > the code that I presented to you in response to your broken example.
> > Or any of my earlier fragments throu
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 20:04:02 UTC, Fleel wrote:
> > It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them.
> > I would totally buy one, and would help to support the
> > foundation too...
>
> We've got a stor
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 02:45, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
> Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read/written,
> >
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:40 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 21.10.18 21:04, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.10.18 17:54, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> As soon as that is done, you've got a data race with
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:50 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 4:12 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:32:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>> On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:35 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 21.10.18 20:46, Manu wrote:
> >> Shared data is only useful if, at some point, it is read/written,
> >> presumably by
> >> casting it to unshared in @trusted code. As soon as that is done, you've
> >> got a
> >> data race
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:15 PM Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:04:16 -0700, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >> Note that there may well be a good way to get the good properties of MP
> >> without breaki
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:35 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/21/2018 2:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 10/21/2018 12:20 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >> Yes, but the problem you describe is arises from implicit conversion in the
> >> other direction, which is not part of the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM Manu wrote:
>
> On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:55 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d,
> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> > > This is an unfair dismissal.
> >
> > It has nothing at all to do with fairness. It is about what the type system
> > guarante
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 1:05 pm Fleel via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> It would be awesome if there were T-Shirts with D-man on them. I
> would totally buy one, and would help to support the foundation
> too...
>
Lucky for you, they exist, and you can acquire one by suppo
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:50 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 05:47:14 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> >> And yet, if we're lucky, we get
> >> a consistent instacrash. If we're unlucky, we get memory
> >> corruption, or an unsolicited write to another currently o
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 21.10.18 17:54, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> As soon as that is done, you've got a data race with the other
> >> existing unshared aliases.
> >
> > You're in @trusted code, that is the whole point. The onus is on the
>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:00 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2018 11:08 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > You can if no-one else writes to it, which is the whole point of Manu's
> > proposal. Perhaps it should be const shared instead of shared but still.
>
> There is no purpose
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:55 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2018 11:24 AM, Manu wrote:
> > This is an unfair dismissal.
>
> It has nothing at all to do with fairness. It is about what the type system
> guarantees in @safe code. To repeat, the current type system guarantees
On Sun., 21 Oct. 2018, 2:05 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2018 11:30 AM, Manu wrote:
> > You can write an invalid program in any imaginable number of ways;
> > that's just not an interesting discussion.
>
> What we're discussing is not an inva
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:10 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 16:48:05 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 09:04:17 UTC, Walter Bright
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2018 11:18 PM, Manu wrote:
> >>> The reason I ask is becaus
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 9:45 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 16:18:53 UTC, aliak wrote:
>
> > class C {
> > void f();
> > void g() shared;
> > }
> >
> > void t1(shared C c) {
> > c.g; // ok
> > c.f; // error
> > }
> >
> > void t2(shared C c)
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:05 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2018 11:18 PM, Manu wrote:
> > The reason I ask is because, by my definition, if you have:
> > int* a;
> > shared(int)* b = a;
> >
> > While you have 2 numbers that address the same data, it is not actually
> > al
On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 7:00 am Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 02:09:56 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
> Scherkl wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 00:46:36 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
> > wrote:
> >> Mutable = value may change
>
On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 12:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with
> > respect
> > to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin
> > with
On Sat., 20 Oct. 2018, 12:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d,
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2018 at 06:04:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > How can you find that such a construct carries its weight with
> > respect
> > to its rare-ness, when its usefulness is very limited to begin
> > with
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:45 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 9:09 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:30 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18.10.18 23:34, Erik van Velzen wrote:
> >>> If you have an object which can be used in both
On Fri., 19 Oct. 2018, 3:10 am Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2018 12:20 AM, Manu wrote:
> > What does it mean 'aliased' precisely?
>
> Aliasing means there are two paths to the same piece of data. That could
> be two
> pointers pointing to the sa
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:05 PM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> Therefore it is possible to implicitly cast from mutable or
> immutable to const but not in any other direction.
>
> I think for unshared, shared and threadsave it should be the same:
> The second is a declaratio
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:45 PM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 18:11:50 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrot
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:45 AM Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 16:24:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
> >> simplicity and lac
On Fri., 19 Oct. 2018, 6:10 am Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 06:25:00 UTC, rikki cattermole
> wrote:
> > On 19/10/2018 7:09 PM, Norm wrote:
>
> > [0]
> > https://github.com/rikkimax/DIPs/blob/shared/DIPs/DIP1xxx-RC
On Thu., 18 Oct. 2018, 7:10 pm Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 01:53:00 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > This is a red-herring.
> > In short, he made up this issue, it doesn't exist.
> > This is just hot air, and only strengthen my co
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:50 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Friday, 19 October 2018 at 01:22:53 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:10 PM Simen Kjærås via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, Two very good points came up in this post, and I think
> >> it's
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:10 PM Simen Kjærås via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
>
> Now, Two very good points came up in this post, and I think it's
> worth stating them again, because they do present possible issues
> with MP:
It is easy to respond to these.
> 1) How does MP deal with reorderings in no
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:30 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 18.10.18 23:34, Erik van Velzen wrote:
> > If you have an object which can be used in both a thread-safe and a
> > thread-unsafe way that's a bug or code smell.
>
> Then why do you not just make all members shared? Because
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:40 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 5:22 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:15 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/18/18 2:55 PM, Manu wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:20 AM Steven Schveig
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:55 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> Manu, Erik, Simen... In what world can a person consciously say
> "casting is unsafe", and yet at the same time claim that
> *implicit casting* is safe? What the actual F, guys?
Implicit casting exists in a world where
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:40 PM Erik van Velzen via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> Manu I'm also making a plea for you to write a document with your
> proposal which aggregates all relevant examples and objections.
> Then you can easily refer to it and we can introduce ppl to idea
> without reading a me
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:10 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 19:51:17 UTC, Erik van Velzen
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 19:26:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
>
> >>> Manu said clearly that the receiving thread won't be able to
> >>> read or
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:15 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 2:55 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:20 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/18/18 10:11 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 13:35
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:10 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 2:24 PM, Manu wrote:
> > I understand your argument, and I used to think this too... but I
> > concluded differently for 1 simple reason: usability.
>
> You have not demonstrated why your proposal is usa
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:20 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 10:11 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > a.increment(); // unsafe, non-shared method call
> > }
> >
> > When a.increment() is being called, you have no idea if anyone else is
> > using the shared interface.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:20 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 10:11 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 October 2018 at 13:35:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> struct ThreadSafe
> >> {
> >>private int x;
> >>void increment()
> >>{
> >>
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:50 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 9:35 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >
> > struct NotThreadsafe
> > {
> >private int x;
> >void local()
> >{
> > ++x; // <- invalidates the method below, you violate the other
> > funct
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:40 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 10:26 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
> >>
> >> The implicit cast means that you have to look at more than just your
> >> method. You have to loo
On Thu., 18 Oct. 2018, 5:05 am Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 22:56:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> If something might be used by someone else it's better not to
> >> touch it, unless one has confirmation it is not used b
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> [... all text ...]
OMFG, I just spent about 3 hours writing a super-detailed reply to all
of Timon's posts in aggregate... I clicked send... and it's gone.
I don't know if this is a gmail thing, a mailing list thing... no
ide
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:15 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 17.10.2018 14:24, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > and unshared methods are only allowed to access unshared members.
>
> This is actually not necessary, let me reformulate:
>
> You want:
>
> - if you have a C c and a shared(C) s, type
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 6:37 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schvei
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:35 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 23:12:48 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> > On
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 19:25:33 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 18:46:18 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >>
> >
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
>
> >> What the example demonstrates is that while you are trying to disallow
> >> implicit casting of a shared pointer
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 18:46:18 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > I've said this a bunch of times, there are 2 rules:
> > 1. shared inhibits read and write access to members
> > 2. `shared` methods must be threadsafe
> >
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/17/18 12:27 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 15:51:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 13:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:45 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2018 11:46 AM, Manu wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Shared has one incredibly valuable feature - it allows you, the programmer, to
> identify data that can be accessed by multiple threads. There are so many ways
> that data
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:20 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 06:21:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:26:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> >> I understand your poi
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 21:19:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
> > There is in fact, no difference between:
> >
> > int *p;
> > shared int *p2 = p;
> > int *p3 = cast(int*)p2;
> >
> > and this:
> >
> > int *p;
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:20 PM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/16/18 4:26 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/16/18 2:10 PM, Manu wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:35 AM Steven Schveig
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> On 10/16/18 2:10 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:35 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/16/18 9:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>> On 10/15/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrot
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:35 AM Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/16/18 9:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On 10/15/18 2:46 PM, Manu wrote:
>
> >>> From there, it opens up another critical opportunity; T* -> shared(T)*
> >> promotion.
> >> Const would be useless without
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:25 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 16.10.2018 13:04, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 10:15:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> >> On 15.10.2018 20:46, Manu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Assuming the rules above: "can't read or write to member
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:20 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 15.10.2018 20:46, Manu wrote:
> >
> > Assuming the rules above: "can't read or write to members", and the
> > understanding that `shared` methods are expected to have threadsafe
> > implementations (because that's the whole
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:25 AM Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > Current situation where you can arbitrarily access shared
> > members
> > undermines any value it has.
>
> The value of shared is existence of thread-local data that's
>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:55 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 02:26:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> I understand your point but I think the current shared (no
> >> implicit conversion) has its uses. It can be quite useful to
> >> have one interface for when an objec
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:25 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 00:15:54 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 4:35 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> >> What?!? So... my unshared methods should also perform all
> >> that's nec
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:15 PM Isaac S. via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 at 00:36:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > *snip*
> >
> > Yes, except maybe I didn't make it clear that I DO expect the
> > un-shared methods to be aware that a sibling shared method does
> > exist
> > (you wro
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 23:30:43 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
> wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:51:43 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >
> >> I see it this way:
> >> If your object has shared methods, then it is distinctly a
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 4:35 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 21:51:43 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > If a shared method is incompatible with an unshared method,
> > your class is broken.
>
> What?!? So... my unshared methods should also perform all that's
> n
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 4:25 PM Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 20:53:32 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:05 PM Peter Alexander via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> 1. A single
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:25 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 20:57:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ass
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:05 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 20:54:12 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 20:44:35 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> snip
> >>
> >> Are you saying `is(immutable(int) == shared) == true)` ??
> >
> > From the spec:
>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:15 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> > Assuming the rules above: "can't read or write to members", and
> > the understanding that `shared` methods are expected to have
> > threadsafe implementation
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:05 PM Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > Destroy...
>
> What you describe sounds better than what we currently have.
>
> I have at least two concerns:
>
> 1. A single producer, single consumer (SPSC) qu
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > Destroy...
>
> Keep in mind immutable is implicitly shared (i.e. not in tls)
> because nobody can change it. It should stay readable for this
> reason.
Are you
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > 2. object may have shared methods; such methods CAN be called on
> > shared instances. such methods may internally implement
> > synchronisation to perform thei
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:46:45 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > 2. object may have shared methods; such methods CAN be called on
> > shared instances. such methods may internally implement
> > synchronisation to perform thei
Okay, so I've been thinking on this for a while... I think I have a
pretty good feel for how shared is meant to be.
1. shared should behave exactly like const, except in addition to
inhibiting write access, it also inhibits read access.
I think this is the foundation for a useful definition for s
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 10:00 AM Boris-Barboris via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 7 October 2018 at 02:01:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > ... but I'm really struggling
> > to express it in terms of the type system...
>
> I'm pretty sure no simple attribute system is any more useful
> than current con
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 8:10 PM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 7 October 2018 at 02:01:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> >> The thing I'm trying to model is an attribute along the lines
> >> of
> >> `shared`, but actually useful ;)
> >> I'll use the attribute `threadsafe` in place o
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:01 PM Manu wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM Manu wrote:
> >
> > So I'm working on a SMT infrastructure, and expression of
> > thread-safety is a core design mechanic... but I'm really struggling
> > to express it in terms of the type system.
> > I figure I'll thr
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:40 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> One thing that occurred to me is that _objects_ are shared,
> whereas _functions/methods_ (and their parameters) are thread
> safe .
>
> Theadsafe is kind of like a const (as to mutable/immutable) to
> threading,
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM Manu wrote:
>
> So I'm working on a SMT infrastructure, and expression of
> thread-safety is a core design mechanic... but I'm really struggling
> to express it in terms of the type system.
> I figure I'll throw some design challenges out here and see if anyone
> can
So I'm working on a SMT infrastructure, and expression of
thread-safety is a core design mechanic... but I'm really struggling
to express it in terms of the type system.
I figure I'll throw some design challenges out here and see if anyone
can offer some good ideas.
The thing I'm trying to model i
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> @Manu, @Jonathan M Davis
>
> > GNU's std::string implementation stores an interior pointer! >_<
>
> it's not just GNU's std::string ; it can crop up in other places, see
> https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso/issues/70 in op
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:00 AM Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> Shachar, as I don't see a better place of discussing that DIP at
> the moment, I'll pour some observations and thoughts in here if
> you don't mind, will add some comments on GitHub later.
> As I see it right now, it's a
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:50 AM Corel via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 at 08:21:38 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:15 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/2/2018 4:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 22:30
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:15 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2018 4:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 22:30:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> Yeah. IIRC, it was supposed to be _guaranteed_ that the compiler moved
> >> structs
> >> in a number of
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:45 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/1/2018 7:31 PM, Manu wrote:
> > Surely `scope` must be transitive?
>
> It isn't.
>
> > How could it work otherwise?
>
> It's a storage class, not a type constructor. There is no "pointer to scope"
> type, for example.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:40 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2018 2:17 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > 1. Don't allow moving of C++ structs
> > 2. Add a struct attribute that means "not moveable"
> > 3. DIP 1014, which is add a __move_post_blit() function (most complex
> > solut
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:20 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 9/29/2018 9:34 PM, Manu wrote:
> > Who knows about DIP 1014? (struct move hook)
> > Is it well received? Is it likely to be accepted soon?
> >
> > I'm working on the std::string binding, it's almost finished... but
> > th
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:00 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 02.10.2018 01:09, Manu wrote:
> > Your entire example depends on escaping references. I think you missed
> > the point?
>
> There was no 'scope' in the OP, and no, that is not sufficient either,
> because scope is not transi
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:45 AM deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > I feel like I don't understand the design...
> > mutable -> shared should work the same as mutable -> const...
> > because
> > surely that's safe?
> >
>
> Nope. Conside
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:55 AM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On 01.10.2018 04:29, Manu wrote:
> > struct Bob
> > {
> >void setThing() shared;
> > }
> >
> > As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that I dun
> > synchronisation internally.
> > This method is declare
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:51 AM Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> pure is not sufficient regardless of what happens with threads, [..]
#truefacts
> Certainly, it's way, way simply just to use scope and force
> the programmer to continue to cast in those cases that the compiler can't
>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:00 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 03:33:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:20 PM Nicholas Wilson via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> >> > struct Bob
>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:20 PM Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 1 October 2018 at 02:29:40 UTC, Manu wrote:
> > struct Bob
> > {
> > void setThing() shared;
> > }
> >
> > As I understand, `shared` attribution intends to guarantee that
> > I dun
> > synchronisation interna
1 - 100 of 1315 matches
Mail list logo
