shared - i need it to be useful

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 10/17/18 10:33 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> 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.

All sides must participate in synchronization for it to make sense. The 
mutable side has no obligation to use atomics. It can use ++data, and 
race conditions will happen.

-Steve