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

[Kagamin]

On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:00:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> 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!

Well, without acquire-release you can't meaningfully share data - 
it simply doesn't reach another thread. Does it even count as 
sharing? With immutable data you need to deliver data only once, 
after that you can read it without synchronization.