The "no gc" crowd

[Dicebot]

On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:46:01 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> The thing with locks is that you need to use the same lock for 
> all accesses to a set of mutated data or atomicity isn't 
> guaranteed.  And if you're locking externally you don't know 
> what might change inside a class during a method call, so you 
> have to use the same lock for all operations on that object, 
> regardless of what you're doing.  At that point you may as well 
> just synchronize on the class itself and be done with it.  So 
> sure, it saves you from having to define shared or synchronized 
> methods, but I don't think this should be how we want to write 
> concurrent code in D.

How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence of 
classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not statement 
block?