Re: 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.