DIP 1024--Shared Atomics--Community Review Round 1

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Saturday, 12 October 2019 at 10:22:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> c. you hand out an unshared version of the dynamic array to 
> another thread which then increase the length of the dynamic 
> array in @safe code

I'm sorry. I mixed up Go and D dynamic array semantics... :-/

I thought they were exactly the same, but apparently D always 
reallocates while Go tries to avoid reallocation.  I dislike the 
semantics of Go too... that being said.

Still, it might be an issue for library types, even though it 
appears to work out for builtins (?).