I wish all qualifiers were revisited with an eye for simplification
simen.kjaras at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 13:18:33 UTC 2020
On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 13:06:35 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:26 PM Simen Kjærås via Digitalmars-d <
> digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> I don't think what you describe has anything to do with DIP1024.
> What you're describing is the scheme I was arguing for 1-2
> years ago, but
> Walter rejected it and presented DIP1024 instead.
> DIP1024 was a step in the right direction, so I supported it at
> that time,
> but it doesn't change any definitions about thread-safety of
> methods, and
> it's not a complete solution. It just adds the restrictions
> that should
> have been there from the start; that is, `shared` has no read
> or write
> access to data.
You're right. I was under the impression that DIP1024 was going
to do all the things in your proposal (and I still hope they will
be added to D eventually), but it seems I was wrong.
More information about the Digitalmars-d