If you could make any changes to D, what would they look like?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Monday, 25 October 2021 at 18:12:36 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> As far as I know this is not what `shared` does, and not what 
> `shared` is intended to do. By itself, `shared` is just a 
> marker for data that requires synchronization to access (what 
> [the spec][1] calls "shared memory locations"). Whether that 
> synchronization is accomplished using atomic operations or 
> locking is entirely up to the programmer.

I think shared is not usable as it stands today, so I have no 
experience with it, but unless my memory is playing tricks with 
me; I think someone pushed for allowing atomic access to struct 
fields of a shared struct and that this was accepted by Walter? 
If I am wrong, then I apologize.