Synchronized classes have no public members

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 10:11:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> For a while we were of the opinion that we should let 
> "synchronized" and "shared" be and move on with alternative 
> features. Now we believe an incomplete language definition is 
> damaging the language as a whole so we better make them fully 
> defined and useful within their charter.
>
> Lock-based synchronization has plenty of good uses and the 
> scope locking defined by "synchronized" covers a large useful 
> subset of it. We need to make it usable safely and without 
> contortions, and this particular PR is a step along that way.
>
> It's not a huge priority but since Andrej has only done the 
> work, the main concern left is breakage of existing code, 
> albeit much of that is incorrect or unnecessarily unsafe.
>

I'm on board with that. Half baked feature is really the worse. 
We should really make sure we either don't do something or do it 
well.