• Mike Parker (2/2) Jan 01 2020 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.
• Manu (3/5) Jan 01 2020 This has been a long time coming!
• Walter Bright (2/10) Jan 01 2020 A New Year's present for all of us!
• Manu (4/14) Jan 02 2020 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
• Walter Bright (4/6) Jan 02 2020 It's already been merged!
• Manu (6/12) Jan 02 2020 Doesn't the acceptance of the DIP suggest that it should no longer be
• Walter Bright (4/21) Jan 02 2020 We switch to -revert after some time has passed (a year or two) so peopl...
• Manu (7/28) Jan 02 2020 Okay, although I don't really understand; if we have accepted the
• Walter Bright (2/7) Jan 03 2020 Those who need it (you!) will use it. That's what matters.
• Manu (9/16) Jan 03 2020 We've already had this -preview for quite a while; I have enabled it
• Walter Bright (4/11) Jan 03 2020 You shouldn't be reluctant to use preview switches. It's only that way t...
• Manu (7/18) Jan 06 2020 Well it was a preview for an unaccepted DIP, so it could have been
• Walter Bright (4/10) Jan 07 2020 It breaks all code that manipulates shared data directly, whether it was...
• Manu (3/13) Jan 07 2020 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?
• Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= (4/8) Jan 07 2020 Since @safe and shared is all syntactical in nature then all
• Walter Bright (2/3) Jan 09 2020 Because customers have their own schedules.
• Manu (10/13) Jan 10 2020 Customers update their compilers according to their schedules, and
• Walter Bright (5/21) Jan 13 2020 We decided a couple years ago to implement disruptive new features first...
• Manu (5/26) Jan 13 2020 Yes, but we've had the -preview for close to a year now... I'm asking
• Andrej Mitrovic (5/12) Jan 06 2020 Nice.
• Rainer Schuetze (6/24) Jan 11 2020 Before making the new semantics the default, the next step should be to
• bauss (2/13) Jan 03 2020 Thank you Walter!

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

This has been a long time coming!

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/1/2020 9:53 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

 
 This has been a long time coming!

A New Year's present for all of us!

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:45 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/1/2020 9:53 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

 This has been a long time coming!

 A New Year's present for all of us!

Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
invalid read/writes! :)

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/2/2020 12:01 AM, Manu wrote:
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
 invalid read/writes! :)

It's already been merged!

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10209

Some really fast work there :-)

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:45 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 12:01 AM, Manu wrote:
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
 invalid read/writes! :)

 It's already been merged!

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10209

 Some really fast work there :-)

Doesn't the acceptance of the DIP suggest that it should no longer be
`-preview`; it should be enabled and an option to disable the feature
via `-revert` should be introduced?
Or short of that, a deprecation message should be emit when compiling?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/2/2020 4:17 AM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:45 PM Walter Bright via
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 12:01 AM, Manu wrote:
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
 invalid read/writes! :)

 It's already been merged!

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10209

 Some really fast work there :-)

 
 Doesn't the acceptance of the DIP suggest that it should no longer be
 `-preview`; it should be enabled and an option to disable the feature
 via `-revert` should be introduced?

We switch to -revert after some time has passed (a year or two) so people have 
time to adapt.

 Or short of that, a deprecation message should be emit when compiling?

I'm not sure that's necessary with the preview/revert switches.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:20 AM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 4:17 AM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:45 PM Walter Bright via
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 12:01 AM, Manu wrote:
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
 invalid read/writes! :)

 It's already been merged!

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10209

 Some really fast work there :-)

 Doesn't the acceptance of the DIP suggest that it should no longer be
 `-preview`; it should be enabled and an option to disable the feature
 via `-revert` should be introduced?

 We switch to -revert after some time has passed (a year or two) so people have
 time to adapt.

 Or short of that, a deprecation message should be emit when compiling?

 I'm not sure that's necessary with the preview/revert switches.

Okay, although I don't really understand; if we have accepted the
feature, but we don't enable the feature... then nobody will use it,
and no code will be written that's compatible.
This kinda seems like a future-acceptance?
Nobody enables `-preview`s.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/2/2020 11:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 Okay, although I don't really understand; if we have accepted the
 feature, but we don't enable the feature... then nobody will use it,
 and no code will be written that's compatible.
 This kinda seems like a future-acceptance?
 Nobody enables `-preview`s.

Those who need it (you!) will use it. That's what matters.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:35 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 11:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 Okay, although I don't really understand; if we have accepted the
 feature, but we don't enable the feature... then nobody will use it,
 and no code will be written that's compatible.
 This kinda seems like a future-acceptance?
 Nobody enables `-preview`s.

 Those who need it (you!) will use it. That's what matters.

We've already had this -preview for quite a while; I have enabled it
in an experimental context, but I don't tend to write and deploy code
that depends on future-features. I stick to the current language when
writing code I intend to share.
Do you have some sense of when we will make this part of the language?
The DIP is accepted, but it didn't describe that it would be enabled
at some future time...?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/3/2020 3:41 AM, Manu wrote:
 We've already had this -preview for quite a while; I have enabled it
 in an experimental context, but I don't tend to write and deploy code
 that depends on future-features. I stick to the current language when
 writing code I intend to share.
 Do you have some sense of when we will make this part of the language?
 The DIP is accepted, but it didn't describe that it would be enabled
 at some future time...?

You shouldn't be reluctant to use preview switches. It's only that way to ease 
the transition for people, not because we're going to withdraw it.

Don't really have a schedule at the moment. It'll likely be at least a year.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 2:15 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/3/2020 3:41 AM, Manu wrote:
 We've already had this -preview for quite a while; I have enabled it
 in an experimental context, but I don't tend to write and deploy code
 that depends on future-features. I stick to the current language when
 writing code I intend to share.
 Do you have some sense of when we will make this part of the language?
 The DIP is accepted, but it didn't describe that it would be enabled
 at some future time...?

 You shouldn't be reluctant to use preview switches. It's only that way to ease
 the transition for people, not because we're going to withdraw it.

Well it was a preview for an unaccepted DIP, so it could have been
withdrawn. I guess I have increased confidence now, but it still seems
unnecessary to delay.

 Don't really have a schedule at the moment. It'll likely be at least a year.

A year? That's disappointing. What is the reason to delay this? It
doesn't break anything, and it likely fixes bugs on contact.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/6/2020 10:17 PM, Manu wrote:
 Well it was a preview for an unaccepted DIP, so it could have been
 withdrawn. I guess I have increased confidence now, but it still seems
 unnecessary to delay.

Preview means for accepted DIPs as well when they break existing code.

 Don't really have a schedule at the moment. It'll likely be at least a year.

 A year? That's disappointing. What is the reason to delay this? It
 doesn't break anything, and it likely fixes bugs on contact.

It breaks all code that manipulates shared data directly, whether it was 
correctly written or not.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/6/2020 10:17 PM, Manu wrote:
 Well it was a preview for an unaccepted DIP, so it could have been
 withdrawn. I guess I have increased confidence now, but it still seems
 unnecessary to delay.

 Preview means for accepted DIPs as well when they break existing code.

 Don't really have a schedule at the moment. It'll likely be at least a year.

 A year? That's disappointing. What is the reason to delay this? It
 doesn't break anything, and it likely fixes bugs on contact.

 It breaks all code that manipulates shared data directly, whether it was
 correctly written or not.

It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 8 January 2020 at 02:31:24 UTC, Manu wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Walter Bright via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> 
 wrote:
 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

Since  safe and shared is all syntactical in nature then all 
these problems can be avoided by just adding compiler switches:

-ignore-shared, -ignore-safe etc...

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/7/2020 6:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

Because customers have their own schedules.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/7/2020 6:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

 Because customers have their own schedules.

Customers update their compilers according to their schedules, and
they can use `-revert` if they're not ready to migrate, that's the
whole point...
You didn't answer me though, if it's accepted, and it's implemented...
why not enable it? and when will we do it?
Explain the reason for the delay or choice in timing? The transition
you describe must happen at some time... and delay changes nothing;
the transition is exactly the same.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/10/2020 2:48 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/7/2020 6:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

 Because customers have their own schedules.

 
 Customers update their compilers according to their schedules, and
 they can use `-revert` if they're not ready to migrate, that's the
 whole point...
 You didn't answer me though, if it's accepted, and it's implemented...
 why not enable it? and when will we do it?
 Explain the reason for the delay or choice in timing? The transition
 you describe must happen at some time... and delay changes nothing;
 the transition is exactly the same.

We decided a couple years ago to implement disruptive new features first with 
-preview=feature, and some time later make it the default and have a 
-revert=feature.

So far, it has worked well. I don't see any reason to change it.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:40 AM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/10/2020 2:48 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:35 PM Walter Bright via
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/7/2020 6:31 PM, Manu wrote:
 It will still do that, either now... or later. So, why wait?

 Because customers have their own schedules.

 Customers update their compilers according to their schedules, and
 they can use `-revert` if they're not ready to migrate, that's the
 whole point...
 You didn't answer me though, if it's accepted, and it's implemented...
 why not enable it? and when will we do it?
 Explain the reason for the delay or choice in timing? The transition
 you describe must happen at some time... and delay changes nothing;
 the transition is exactly the same.

 We decided a couple years ago to implement disruptive new features first with
 -preview=feature, and some time later make it the default and have a
 -revert=feature.

 So far, it has worked well. I don't see any reason to change it.

Yes, but we've had the -preview for close to a year now... I'm asking
what "some time later" means?
Obviously the lib needs to be fixed (that Rainer pointed out).

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

On Thursday, 2 January 2020 at 09:41:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/2/2020 12:01 AM, Manu wrote:
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for 
 those
 invalid read/writes! :)

 It's already been merged!

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/10209

 Some really fast work there :-)

Nice.

There was some initial work on shared a long while back: 
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/276a69327652be8d95607cec142790baae110d0c

It's interesting it took this long to push it to the end. :)

Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario gmx.de> writes:

On 02/01/2020 09:01, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:45 PM Walter Bright via
 Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 1/1/2020 9:53 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

 This has been a long time coming!

 A New Year's present for all of us!

 
 Quick quick, we need a PR to issue deprecation messages for those
 invalid read/writes! :)
 

Before making the new semantics the default, the next step should be to
make druntime and phobos compile with the preview-switch. That didn't
seem like a no-brainer to me when I recently tried that (but only for a
couple of minutes), especially with shared being applied to class/struct
declarations.

bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:

On Thursday, 2 January 2020 at 06:40:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/1/2020 9:53 PM, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Mike Parker via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", was accepted without comment.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1024.md

 
 This has been a long time coming!

 A New Year's present for all of us!

Thank you Walter!