Regurgitated proposal: Make loop conditions part of the body's scope

[downs]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> So it could be that the root of the error is
> that D is letting you create a scope class in a non-scope way, when it 
> shouldn't.
> 
> --bb

Okay, but the behavior I described is what would be expected from constructing a scope object like 
"with (new ScopeObject)", because "with" *means* "use the parameter inside the scope"; a behavior 
which is semantically very similar to what "scope" means.
So I'd recommend making this actually a _valid_ case, as well as fixing its behavior, instead of 
outright forbidding it (which, admittedly, would also solve the bug).
  --downs