On 2013-11-22 10:27, luka8088 wrote:
Um, my it's suppose to be the same as <[ ... ]> but I liked t{ ... }
syntax better as it looked more consistent with what D already has. But
I should have used <[ ... ]> , my mistake sorry.
I thought you argued that the t{ } need to contain semantically valid code?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
