An Issue I Wish To Raise Awareness On

[Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 22:35:43 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> The issue isn't the object being destroyed. It's what it refers 
> to via its member variables. For instance, what if an object 
> were to remove itself from a shared list when it's destroyed 
> (e.g. because it's an observer in the observer pattern). The 
> object has a reference to the list, but it doesn't own it.
So, even a thread-local object that has references to a shared 
list
has to handle those as shared, even in its non-shared destructor.
I can't follow your argument.