Synchronized classes have no public members

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2015-10-16 23:54, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Well, you probably will at some point, even if you don't know. According
> to TDPL, there's not supposed to be any such thing as a class with some
> functions which are synchronized and some not. The entire class is
> synchronized or none of it is, and if the class is synchronized then the
> member variables of the class are not accessible outside of the class.
> But that hasn't been implemented yet. Instead, we have synchronized
> functions like in Java. The PR that this thread is about makes it so
> that the member variables aren't accessible outside of the class, which
> probably won't cause DWT any problems, since public member variables are
> generally a bad idea. However, if this PR (or a future PR) actually
> finishes implementing synchronized classes (I don't know how far this PR
> actually goes), then any classes that DWT has which have any
> synchronized functions would then have to be synchronized classes. So,
> while the current PR may not break DWT, odds are that at some point in
> the future, synchronized classes will be finished, and DWT will probably
> break. It wouldn't surprise me if fixing it were fairly easy -
> particularly if DWT tends to synchronize all of the functions in a class
> when it synchronizes any of them - but at bare minimum, you're probably
> going to have to move the synchronized keyword from the function
> declarations to the class declaration, and it's possible that some of
> the implementation will have to change to cope with the fact that it's
> then not legal to have some functions in a class synchronized while
> others aren't.

Basically all of the usage of the "synchronized" keyword in DWT is 
actually the synchronized statement. I found a couple of more false 
positives where "synchronized" was part of a method name. There are 
cases where not all of the methods contain the synchronized statement.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg