• nrgyzer (17/17) Nov 12 2011 Hi guys,
• Andrej Mitrovic (4/4) Nov 12 2011 First one can be:
• Andrej Mitrovic (2/2) Nov 12 2011 Btw a quicker way to cast away shared is to use:
• Steven Schveighoffer (14/34) Nov 14 2011 The objects have to implement shared methods directly. From your sample...

nrgyzer <nrgyzer gmail.com> writes:

Hi guys,

is there any way to use shared members without casting them? Fox example:

class Example {

    private shared HashSet!(string) ex;

    ...

    this() {
        ex = cast(shared) new HashSet!(string)();
    }

    void write() {
        foreach (ref c; cast(HashSet!(string)) ex) {
            std.stdio.writeln(c);
        }
    }
}

Without casting, I always get some errors. My classes contains many different
collections and values, so I've many casts which makes the code at some points
a bit unclear. Is there any way to prevent the casting from/to shared objects?

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

First one can be:
ex = new shared(HashSet!(string));

I don't know about foreach/opApply, I guess each library has to
implemented shared support manually?

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

Btw a quicker way to cast away shared is to use:

foreach (ref c; cast()ex)

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:20:54 -0500, nrgyzer <nrgyzer gmail.com> wrote:

 Hi guys,

 is there any way to use shared members without casting them? Fox example:

 class Example {

     private shared HashSet!(string) ex;

     ...

     this() {
         ex = cast(shared) new HashSet!(string)();
     }

     void write() {
         foreach (ref c; cast(HashSet!(string)) ex) {
             std.stdio.writeln(c);
         }
     }
 }

 Without casting, I always get some errors. My classes contains many  
 different
 collections and values, so I've many casts which makes the code at some  
 points
 a bit unclear. Is there any way to prevent the casting from/to shared  
 objects?

The objects have to implement shared methods directly.  From your sample  
code, I assume you are using dcollections.

I have not yet thought about how to tackle shared versions of containers.   
Certainly, your code is not a good way to do it, since you are not doing  
any synchronization.

The issue is, if a container is shared, you may only call shared methods  
on it.  I have no shared methods in dcollections, because they would be  
simple wrappers for synchronizing the methods on the container.  I would  
like to find an automatic way to do this rather than use boilerplate  
everywhere.

I also would like to investigate shared-aware containers that are safer to  
use (possibly lock-free) than simply synchronizing all methods.

-Steve