The "no gc" crowd

[Sean Kelly]

On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:50:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>
> How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence of 
> classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not statement 
> block?

I'm not sure I follow.  But I was in part objecting to the use of 
synchronized without a related object:

synchronized {
     // do stuff
}

This statement should be illegal.  You must always specify a 
synchronization context:

synchronized(myMutex) {
     // do stuff
}

For the rest, it seemed like the suggestion was that you could 
just wrap a statement in any old synchronized block and all your 
problems would be solved, which absolutely isn't the case.