Re: An important pull request: accessing shared affix for immutable data

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 02/12/2016 09:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Const could also mean mutable. This can hence reference the same data as
both shared and unshared, which violates the type system.

If const comes from mutable, then shared is superfluous leading to extra 
synchronization. That's suboptimal, but how does it violate the type 
system? -- Andrei