An Issue I Wish To Raise Awareness On

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 20:59:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> Not necessarily - the reference counted smart pointer doesn't 
> have to be `shared` itself to have a `shared` payload.

Yes, but it can be done either way. It's actually what Jack is 
trying to do: make stdout shared and reference counted: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15768#c7

> I'm not even entirely sure what the advantage of it being 
> `shared` would be, or even what that would really mean.

It will be thread safe and its lifetime will be automatically 
managed.

> You've definitely made me wonder about complicated cases, but 
> I'd argue that they'd be rare. Destructors are (bar manually 
> calling them) run in one thread. I'm having trouble imagining a 
> situation where two threads have references to a `shared` 
> object/value that is going to be destroyed deterministically.

A mutex, a file, a socket, any shareable resource. Though I agree 
that reference counting of shared resources should be optimized 
by thread local counters.