Re: 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);
    }
}