On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 07:42:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, May 27, 2013 09:37:38 deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 00:43:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> That was technically difficult to do back then, and fell by
> the
> wayside. Today it would break too much code to introduce even
> if feasible.
Can you expand more on the breakage risk please ?
If nothing else, it would mean that the variables inside of the
in block would
not go out of scope when the in block ended, so their
destructors would not be
called and the like, whereas now they would be. The same goes
for scope
statements in the in block. I don't know how much of an issue
any of that is
realistically though. But Andrei may have other reasons why it
would be a
problem.
You are right, destructor is an issue. The risk of name collision
exists as well but I don't think it is realistically that
widespread in actual codebase.
