Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[David Nadlinger]

On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 17:54:16 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> That is correct. My point is that compiler implementers would 
> follow some specification. That specification would contain 
> informationt hat atomicLoad and atomicStore must have special 
> properties that put them apart from any other functions.

What are these special properties? Sorry, it seems like we are 
talking past each other…

>> [1] I am not sure where the point of diminishing returns is 
>> here,
>> although it might make sense to provide the same options as 
>> C++11. If I
>> remember correctly, D1/Tango supported a lot more levels of
>> synchronization.
>
> We could start with sequential consistency and then explore 
> riskier/looser policies.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. The functions in 
core.atomic already exist, and currently offer four levels (raw, 
acq, rel, seq). Are you suggesting to remove the other options?

David