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.
