The "no gc" crowd

[Johannes Pfau]

Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:04:16 -0400
schrieb "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:

> most D programmers seem to describe when talking about shared is
> simply using __gshared with normal types, not even using shared, let
> alone using it with types specifically designed to function as
> shared. So, the most common approach at this point in D seems to be
> to avoid shared entirely.

One important reason for this is that the types in core.sync still
aren't shared.

--------
Mutex myMutex; //WRONG, myMutex is in TLS
shared Mutex myMutex; //WRONG, can't call .lock, new
__gshared Mutex myMutex; //Can't be used in @safe code...

//shared Mutex + casting to unshared when accessing: Can't be used in
//@safe code

See also:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.2017.1353214033.5162.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com?page=2#post-mailman.2037.1353278884.5162.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com

Sean Kelly:
"I tried this once and it cascaded to requiring modifications of
various definitions on core.sys.posix to add a "shared" qualifier, and
since I wasn't ready to do that I rolled back the changes.  I guess the
alternative would be to have a shared equivalent for every operation
that basically just casts away shared and then calls the non-shared
function, but that's such a terrible design I've been resisting it."