Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[Walter Bright]

On 11/13/2012 4:04 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> That is what java's volatile do. It have several uses cases, including valid
> double check locking (It has to be noted that this idiom is used incorrectly in
> druntime ATM,

Please, please file a bug report about this, rather than a vague statement here. 
If there already is one, please post its number.


> So sequentially consistent read/write are usefull.

Sure, I agree with that.


> This struct stuff don't make any sense to me. Java, C# and many other language
> multithread, have everything shared and still are able to have finalizer of some
> sort.

I understand, though, that they take steps to ensure that the finalizer is run 
in one thread and no other thread still has access to it - i.e. it is converted 
back to a local reference.

> Why couldn't a shared object be destroyed ? Why should it be destroyed in a
> specific thread as it can only refer shared data because of transitivity ?

How can you destroy an object in one thread when another thread holding live 
references to it? (Well, how can you destroy it without causing corruption bugs, 
that is.)