queue container?

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

I don't get why don't you like the idea of having a thread-safe
version of methods of containers, so they would be usable as shared
objects?

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:47:10 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan
> <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thread-awareness of D opens up a large heap of opportunities! They are
>> not utilized because of poor support. As soon as you start sharing
>> something, the libraries you use start to throw tons of errors.
>
> I agree shared is too rough to use right now on existing libraries.  But I'm
> not about to worry about shared natively in collections.
>
> I'd hazard to guess that something could be cobbled together with a wrapper
> class that synchronized a collection of shared types.  Then you create this
> wrapper to be able to use a shared collection.
>
> But that doesn't make a collection "shared-aware", it just makes it thread
> safe.
>
>> i think the infamous __gshared is the "const" of shared.
>
> Most definitely __gshared is not the const of shared.  It just means store a
> type in the global namespace without having it be shared.  It does not
> respect shared, nor is it a type modifier (as const is).
>
> -Steve
>