shared - no read/write access

[Rubn]

On Thursday, 21 March 2019 at 19:03:23 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 20:15:23 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> So, just to be clear, you favour shared being broken and 
>> meaningless
>> to actually meaning something and being useful?
>
> Its meaning is to provide guarantee that thread-local data 
> doesn't have threading issues and I posted the proof of its 
> usefulness.

If the data is thread local, then it is already guaranteed to 
have no conflict with other threads. Hence it being "thread 
local", only the local thread can access the data. There's no 
need for a "shared" qualifier in this regard.