Comment # 6 on bug 126 from Iain Buclaw

(In reply to Johannes Pfau from comment #5)
> Oh, and back to topic:
> 
> > I am quite open to solutions, other than I don't think 'volatile' as a keyword > would be something reintroduced to the language am afaid.
> 
> Yes, that's what I fear as well. But thinking about it volatility is a
> property of the memory location and that best maps to a type qualifier.
> (It's not exactly the same thing, but we also have this conflation for
> immutable type / read only memory and in practice it should work fine).
> 

If we are going for property, maybe @volatile might end up standing. ;)