Whoops, this example has caused a bit of confusion, to be clear, I’m not proposing that sharedValue be a “special” property name akin to wrappedValue or projectedValue, it’s just the name I happened to pick for this “Sharing” wrapper. (Edit: maybe blessing sharedValue in this way is a good idea, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other on it.)
Additionally, sharedValue here was supposed to be a let, not a var.
In other words, this example is intended to follow exactly what is being proposed wrt shared storage in propertyWrappers, nothing more, nothing less.