DIP 1024--Shared Atomics--Community Review Round 1

[Manu]

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 2:20 AM Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 at 06:31:18 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 11, 2019 10:58:29 PM MDT Walter Bright via
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2019 3:42 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>
> >> > It should be that shared memory access is disabled in all
> >> > contexts,
> >> > which must be worked around with casts,
> >> > which makes the function @system,
> >> > which must then be encapsulated with a @trusted interface in
> >> > order to
> >> > use in @safe code.
> >>
> >> Sounds right.
> >
> > This is pretty much what several of us were arguing for during
> > the discussions about shared at dconf this year.
>
> How are you going to prove that @safe code does not retain
> nonshared-references after the lock has been released?
>
> How does his work with array elements/slices.

I think `scope` and `return` have something to say about avoiding
escaping references. When the semantics are all working, we can
produce such test code.