Synchronized classes have no public members

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 15:51:50 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-16 23:54, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

Ah. I misunderstood then. I wouldn't expect there to be any 
changes which would break synchronized statements unless we got 
rid of synchronized entirely, which is unlikely.

- Jonathan M Davis