I haven't found this specific topic anywhere in the archives so
I'll throw it out there for feedback.
[quote] TDPL pg. 81
"There is no ambiguity-related danger in using nested 'with's
because the language disallows shadowing of a symbol introduced
by an outer with by a symbol introduced by an inner with. In
brief, in D a local symbol can never shadow another local symbol"
[/quote]
Technically 'with' blocks can be placed just about anywhere you
could run normal code (and sometimes replaces blocks), however
there are cases where I'm required to use extra braces. Mind you
this is minor syntactical issues, but..
enum E {}
enum F {}
enum G {}
currently:
void func()
//in/out contracts
body {
with (E) {
}
}
block replacement:
if () {
} else with(E) {
//
}
Theoretically legal...
void func()
//in/out contracts
body with (E) { //with replaces normal block
}
The above refuses to compile, however I don't feel I'd need an
extra level of indentation, and since it's static data like Enums
perhaps you'd want multiples. Last 'with' only accepts one
argument, but I wonder if it wouldn't hurt to enter multiple.
Mind you it will still error during compiling if there's
ambiguity. This makes more sense with enums and statically known
data vs variables.
with(E) {
with(F) {
with(G) {
//code
}
}
}
or (better, TDPL pg. 81)
with(E) with(F) with(G) {
//code
}
vs
with(E, F, G) {
//code
}
Perhaps a feature request. I know it's not essential so I won't
try and push it, but syntactical sugar can't hurt right?
