Re: Synchronized classes have no public members

[Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d]

On 13-Oct-2015 21:28, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:52:55 +0000
[snip]
Guys, sorry to break into your wishful thinking, but
    synchronized(mutex) {}

already works as you want it to since as long as I can think.
Yes, it takes a parameter, yes it calls lock/unlock on the
mutex. :)

Now how hard would it be to support any object (mutex kind) with 
lock/unlock?

Or do we even need it with scope(exit)?


--
Dmitry Olshansky