Is synchronized(...){...} doomed to never be nothrow/@nogc?

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 at 17:46:17 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> So I guess the way forward here for the Druntime code is to 
> abandon the synchronized() statement and use locks directly?

I believe this is the way. Synchronized statements don't add any 
crucial value compared to plain locks. At the same time 
forbidding throwing from even more runtime overrides would be 
both annoying and unnecessary restrictive.