Shared - Another Thread

[Manu]

On Thu., 18 Oct. 2018, 5:05 am Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d, <
digitalmars-d at 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 by
> >> someone else.
> >>
> >> This is what shared has to enforce.
> >
> > Yes.  But how can the compiler statically verify this?  Because
> > if it cannot be statically verified, then somewhere along the
> > line we have to trust the programmer. Ergo, it's programming by
> > convention, and we all know how effective that is.
> >
> and that is exactly what shared is currently doing. Adding the rw
> restriction at least adds a protection for inadvertantly changing
> a shared object, a thing that doesn't exist now.
>
> What cracks me up with Manu's proposal is that it is its
> simplicity and lack of ambition that is criticized the most.
> shared is a clusterfuck, according to what I gathered from the
> forum, I never had yet to use it in my code. Manu's idea makes it
> a little less of a clusterfuck, and people attack the idea
> because it doesn't solve all and everything that's wrong with
> shared. Funny.
>

Elaborate on this... It's clearly over-ambitious if anything.
What issues am I failing to address? I'm creating a situation where using
shared has a meaning, is safe, and doesn't require any unsafe interactions,
no casts, etc, for users at any level above the bare metal tooling... How
would you improve on that proposition?

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20181018/9cd1cbf6/attachment.html>