Semantics of shared

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 02:13:37 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Robert Jacques wrote:
>> I agree for POD, but what classes where the synchronization is  
>> encapsulated behind a virtual function call?
>
> synchronization can make a shared reference "tail shared".

I agree, but that doesn't seem answer my question. Put another way, if I  
have an interface I which is implemented by both a thread local class L  
and a shared class S, then does some function F need to know about whether  
the implementor of I is S or L?

P.S. There will obviously be some interfaces S can't implement, but that a  
separate issue.

>> Also, does this mean 'scope' as a type is going away?
>
> Scope never was a type, it's a storage class.

Sorry for the confusion of terminology. However, you talk blog about using  
the 'scope' keyword to support escape analysis, ettc. i.e. 'scope' would  
become the 'const' of the shared-thread local-stack storage type system.  
Is this still the plan?