D2 full closure?

[Frank Benoit]

Jason House schrieb:
> Frank Benoit Wrote:
> 
>> With DMD 2.015:
>>
>> alias void delegate() Runner;
>> void main(){
>>    Runner[] runner;
>>    for( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ){
>>      const int ci = i;
>>      runners ~= delegate(){
>>        writefln( "run with ci=%d", ci );
>>      }
>>    }
>>    foreach( runner; runners ){
>>      runner();
>>    }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Output:
>> run with ci=2
>> run with ci=2
>> run with ci=2
>>
>> Is this output expected?
>>  From the technical point yes, because i know how it is implemented.
>> But is this expected in the sense of "Full closure"?
>>
>> In Java, if ci would be "final" and the delegate an anonymous class,
>> the output would be 0,1,2.
> 
> I could have sworn there was a bug report to make this work like you want. Another alternative is to use bind. 

Yes i know there are ways to make it work.
But my question is, shouldn't it work in this code?
Is it a bug or not?
Is it ok that the constant is changing the value?
Should each delegate get its own heap allocated copy of the stack frame?