Synchronized classes have no public members

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 06:26:30 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-15 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I would like to add that the impact of a possible breakage 
> depends on what the alternative is. If a function in Phobos or 
> druntime is provided with the same functionality, then the 
> breakage have less of an impact.

As far as I understand topic is about deprecating direct field 
access of synchronized classes, method calls in synhronized 
classes and `synchronized () {}` blocks will remain untouched.