Andrei Alexandrescu:
Doesn't enable anything.
Right, on the other hand a switch offers code more DRY compared to nested static ifs, and this part of the point of having a dynamic switch too. And the cognitive cost for a D programmer to remember what is a "static switch" is small (even if you inevitably need "static final switch" too if you create a "static switch"). I have never opened an enhancement request on this because the need for a static switch is not strong, but it's not zero.
There'd be a ton more juice in a static foreach; it would enable a lot of great idioms. We should pursue that instead.
Probably worth a DIP. Other than that, we're a go.
So do you like to tag this issue as pre-approved? (The gist of this ER is that even an arbitrarily partial implementation of a static foreach is better than having none at all):
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4085 Bye, bearophile
