Manu's `shared` vs the @trusted promise

[Manu]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 22.10.18 10:39, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 22:03:00 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> [...]
> > It's invalid only if Atomic.badboy exists.
>
> I don't agree. I prefer the stronger @trusted. As far as I know, the
> stronger one is the current one.

The current one has the critical weakness that it causes **EVERY
USER** to write unsafe code, manually casting things to shared.
You're here spouting some fantasy about a bad-actor hacking cruft into
Atomic() in druntime...

Like, if you're worried about the author of Atomic(T), how about
_every user, including the interns_?
author:users is a 1:many relationship. I can't imagine any line of
reason that doesn't find it logical that the proper placement of the
burden of correctly handling @trusted code should be the one expert
threadsafe library author, and not *every user ever*, because that's
what the current model prescribes, and the entire point for wasting my
breath.