An Issue I Wish To Raise Awareness On

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 10:19:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> 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.

It's the other way around:

ThreadLocal tl;

struct ThreadLocal
{
     shared(ListNode*)* listHead;
     shared(ListNode)*  listNode;

     ~this()
     {
         listHead.removeNodeFromList(listNode);
     }
}