Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/12 7:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 03:51:13 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> I have no idea what we want to do about this situation though. Regardless of
>> what we do with memory barriers and the like, it has no impact on whether
>> casts are required. And I think that introducing the shared equivalent of
>> const would be a huge mistake, because then most code would end up being
>> written using that attribute, meaning that all code essentially has to be
>> treated as shared from the standpoint of compiler optimizations. It would
>> almost be the same as making everything shared by default again. So, as far
>> as I can see, casting is what we're forced to do.
>
> Actually, I think that what it comes down to is that shared works nicely when
> you have a type which is designed to be shared, and it encapsulates everything
> that it needs. Where it starts requiring casting is when you need to pass it
> to other stuff.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

TDPL 13.14 explains that inside synchronized classes, top-level shared 
is automatically lifted.

Andrei