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.
