A breach of immutability due to memory implicit conversions to immutable without synchronisation, maybe??

[John Colvin]

On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 14:54:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> However, with relaxed memory ordering I'm now more convinced 
> that this would break immutability, which in turn means that 
> the oft-made statement "immutable data doesn't require 
> synchronisation" isn't true.

The correct statement would be more like "reading immutable data 
doesn't require synchronisation if the method of obtaining the 
reference to the immutable data has at least acquire-release 
semantics". Which is considerably less snappy and confidence 
inspiring haha!