Why do you continue to use D?

[Manu]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:20 AM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 6/4/2020 7:44 PM, Manu wrote:
> > ...
>
> Regarding shared,
>
>      void test(shared(int)* p) { *p = 1; }
>
> dmd -preview=nosharedaccess test
>
>      test.d(31): Error: direct access to shared *p is not allowed, see
> core.atomic
>
> Isn't that what you wanted?
>

That's the very very very start of the journey. That change alone only
opens the door; but there's open issues relating to initialisation from
that change, there's important opportunities with `shared` in conjunction
with `scope` (which is what I was arguing for when I was making the case
for `scope` as it is today way back in dconf2013, if you can recall those
long arguments), and we had a big discussion about how to implement
parallel-for (and associated machinery) which you rejected because you
found it unacceptable that a library may have to insert fences at the
appropriate places rather than the compiler doing it automatically
(redundantly) everywhere the pattern emerged. Timon said he thought he knew
how to work the proposal into a form you'd find agreeable, but he hasn't
replied to me on that recently.
This was all discussed at length over many months. It kinda just stalled
when I fatigued. If we're ready to pick up the ball, that would be really
valuable work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20200605/d5df0b79/attachment.htm>