Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 12:22:22 -0400
On 5/28/23 12:19, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>
> On 5/28/23 12:08, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>> Remember: the problem is that users *forget*. But your solution
>> doesn't make it impossible to forget. There are many circumstances
>> where common access patterns *require* the user to take special action
>> in order to avoid data races. Because this requires manual
>> intervention, users must identify these scenarios and *remember* to
>> take that intervention.
>>
>> Therefore, people can still forget to do this. And therefore, all the
>> bugs are still there.
>>
>> Your proposed solution provides only the illusion of safety, not
>> actual safety. A solution that works only 60% of the time without
>> *correct* manual intervention is, for most users, no better than a
>> solution that works 0% of the time. It still requires the user to be
>> mindful of their interactions with the container, to be heavily aware
>> that the container is shared and to treat it specially. One code
>> change can still turn previously functional code into broken code.
>>
>> So your solution is not only inefficient, it is ineffective.
>
> Well first I would increase the 60% up to 90%.
>
> If 90% is insufficient for you and 0% is your preference then that is
> your personal choice, no everybody else's.
Besides, the aforementioned condition just involves a non-const member
call in a compound statement so that can easily be automated with C++
Superset.
Thanks for the hint anyways.
>
>
> On 5/28/23 12:08, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>> Remember: the problem is that users *forget*. But your solution
>> doesn't make it impossible to forget. There are many circumstances
>> where common access patterns *require* the user to take special action
>> in order to avoid data races. Because this requires manual
>> intervention, users must identify these scenarios and *remember* to
>> take that intervention.
>>
>> Therefore, people can still forget to do this. And therefore, all the
>> bugs are still there.
>>
>> Your proposed solution provides only the illusion of safety, not
>> actual safety. A solution that works only 60% of the time without
>> *correct* manual intervention is, for most users, no better than a
>> solution that works 0% of the time. It still requires the user to be
>> mindful of their interactions with the container, to be heavily aware
>> that the container is shared and to treat it specially. One code
>> change can still turn previously functional code into broken code.
>>
>> So your solution is not only inefficient, it is ineffective.
>
> Well first I would increase the 60% up to 90%.
>
> If 90% is insufficient for you and 0% is your preference then that is
> your personal choice, no everybody else's.
Besides, the aforementioned condition just involves a non-const member
call in a compound statement so that can easily be automated with C++
Superset.
Thanks for the hint anyways.
-- Logo <https://www.fornux.com/> *Phil Bouchard* facebook icon <https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-bouchard-5723a910/> Founder & CEO T: (819) 328-4743 E: phil_at_[hidden]| www.fornux.com <http://www.fornux.com> 8 rue de la Baie| Gatineau (Qc), J8T 3H3 Canada Banner <https://goglobalawards.org/> Le message ci-dessus, ainsi que les documents l'accompagnant, sont destinés uniquement aux personnes identifiées et peuvent contenir des informations privilégiées, confidentielles ou ne pouvant être divulguées. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire. This communication (and/or the attachments) is intended for named recipients only and may contain privileged or confidential information which is not to be disclosed. If you received this communication by mistake please destroy all copies.
Received on 2023-05-28 16:22:23