The "no gc" crowd

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:49:11 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 02:07:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>>
>> TDPL describes how synchronized automatically peels off the 
>> "shared" off of direct members of the object. Unfortunately 
>> that feature is not yet implemented.
>
> This would help a ton.  I'm still not super happy about having 
> to label an entire method as synchronized for this to work 
> though.  I'd prefer to label it shared and synchronize only the 
> part(s) inside that need to hold the lock.

It should work as well with

synchronized(stuff) {
// Stuff get its first level sharing removed.
}