Synchronized classes have no public members

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/14/15 9:24 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-13 14:56, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> I still have no idea why I would ever use `synchronized` (any automatic
>> thread synchronization is harmful in my opinion) so change itself is
>> irrelevant. But it may break quite some old Java-liked 3d party code for
>> no benefit and that would be annoying.
>
> Like DWT :)

That may be worrisome. Any information on how many are using DWT, and 
how badly it would break if we pulled the change?

If we assess there's too much breakage, we can define a DIP and make the 
check opt-in via a flag -dipNN.


Andrei