shared - i need it to be useful

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:26:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 17.10.2018 16:14, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> I was thinking that mutable -> shared const as apposed to 
>> mutable -> shared would get around the issues that Timon 
>> posted.
>
> Unfortunately not. For example, the thread with the mutable 
> reference is not obliged to actually make the changes that are 
> performed on that reference visible to other threads.

Yes, but that is covered by not being able to read non-atomically 
from a shared reference.