synchronized - shared but actually useful

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 1 July 2022 at 07:13:23 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
> Apropos of running into a production threading error that would 
> have been fixed by this synchronized proposal, let me just bump 
> this thread to note that it's four years later and this code 
> still fails to compile for absolutely zero reason:
>
> ```
> synchronized class A
> {
>     private int e;
>     void foo() { e++; }
> }
> ```

That is a weird bug, it works for ‘e=e+1’?