An important pull request: accessing shared affix for immutable data
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Feb 12 18:35:43 PST 2016
On 02/12/2016 09:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Const could also mean mutable. This can hence reference the same data as
> both shared and unshared, which violates the type system.
If const comes from mutable, then shared is superfluous leading to extra
synchronization. That's suboptimal, but how does it violate the type
system? -- Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list