On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 18:05:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 4/24/15 1:22 PM, "=?UTF-8?B?Ik3DoXJjaW8=?= Martins\"
\"" wrote:
Hi!
I just stumbled across what seems like a misunderstanding on
my side
about these keywords. Can someone help clarify these for me?
On 4/24/15 2:47 PM, bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
These are the same, __gshared overrides static.
Isn't forbidding "__gshared static" a good idea then, to avoid user
confusion?
Surely, prohibiting non-functioning attributes is good when it's obvious
that th
Steven Schveighoffer:
These are the same, __gshared overrides static.
Isn't forbidding "__gshared static" a good idea then, to avoid
user confusion?
Bye,
bearophile
On 4/24/15 1:22 PM, "=?UTF-8?B?Ik3DoXJjaW8=?= Martins\"
\"" wrote:
Hi!
I just stumbled across what seems like a misunderstanding on my side
about these keywords. Can someone help clarify these for me?
```
__gshared static int foo;
__gshared int foo;
```
What are the
Hi!
I just stumbled across what seems like a misunderstanding on my
side about these keywords. Can someone help clarify these for me?
```
__gshared static int foo;
__gshared int foo;
```
What are the storage and semantic differences between those two,
if any?
Cheers,
-M
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4419
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:47:21 +, %u wrote:
> Is this a bug?
>
>__gshared static i;
>
> makes i be thread-local, while
>
>static __gshared i;
>
> makes it be shared.
If that's the case, then it is definitely a bug. The order of attributes
shouldn't matter.
-Lars
Is this a bug?
__gshared static i;
makes i be thread-local, while
static __gshared i;
makes it be shared.
