On May 31, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > It does make sense, but I think we need a Lock struct type that makes sure > code cannot screw up the number of lock and unlock calls. We shouldn't just > expose bare lock() and unlock().
synchronized already works with classes that implement Object.Monitor, and we have scope guards. Do we really need an RTTI Lock struct as well?
