Synchronized classes have no public members

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:51:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:20:17 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
>>
>> I agree that synchronized classes / functions that not that 
>> useful.
>>
>> But synchronized statements, to me, make the intention of 
>> locking explicit.
>
> Synchronized statements are fine and serve a good purpose, no 
> need to delete them in my opinion.
>
>>
>> Maybe the internal monitor could be removed (with synchronized 
>> classes / functions as well), and allow synchronized() {} to 
>> be called on Lock objects, that essentially locks them at the 
>> beginning and unlocks them at the end.
>
> Yes, I would love that.

Isn't dedicated language feature a bit too much for a glorified 
mutex scope guard?