Freeman wrote:
>> Example:
>>
>> with(a)
>> {
>> :x = x; // Unambiguously means a.x = x
>> :x = .x; // Unambiguously means a.x = .x
>> }
I think the plan is to get rid of 'with', and I can't say I disagree.
If you can say
with(a) { :x = f(); :x = g(); }
you can also say
{ auto w = a; w.x = f(); w.x = g(); }
or similar.
Hardly any longer, and without the need for a whole language construct.
--
Michiel Helvensteijn
