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

[Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 07:05:07 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> 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.

+1

For the sake of @nogc, I can't use druntime locks or synchronized 
anyway.