Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Janice Caron" wrote
> On 02/04/2008, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>  > (2) are we really sure that modifying an AA is an atomic operation? 
>> I'm
>>  > not.
>>
>> I am really sure that modifying an AA is not an atomic operation, but 
>> that
>>  has no bearing on the proof.  Setting x in the mutable version is also 
>> not
>>  atomic.
>
> Two instances of the same muty class would each have their own
> independent mutable variables. That means that modifications to those
> variables don't have to be atomic.
>
> However, two instances of the same globby class would share the /same/
> AA, so accesses to that AA would need to be atomic, otherwise, the AA
> could itself end up with a corrupt memory layout.

OK, sure, so we lock the AA with a mutex lock :)

Again, has no bearing on the proof.

-Steve