An Issue I Wish To Raise Awareness On

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 07:40:35 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
Scherkl wrote:
> 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.

Thread local object can't be contained in a shared list, the list 
is referred as unqualified, and thread local object will be 
contained in a thread local list, and shared object will be 
contained in a shared list because of transitivity of the shared 
qualifier.