"with" should be deprecated with extreme prejudice

[Robert Fraser]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
> news:a6268ff5f5d8cba54f824da454 at news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> I'm not a touch-typer, but I've never seen much of a point to "with".
>>> If I have to access a bunch of members of
>>> "foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle", I'll just do "auto fizz = 
>>> foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle;" and use that, or put it into
>> that dosn't work if it's by value and is used as an Lvalue.
>>
>>> a function that takes a "typeof(fizze)", or do something else along
>> like this? that looks... odd.
>>
>> void outer()
>> {
>>     void inner(ref T t)
>>     {
>>          t.somthing;
>>          ...
>>     }
>>     inner(foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle);
>> }
>>
>>> those lines. I've yet to come across a case where something like
>>> that isn't perfectly sufficient.
>>>
> 
> Like I said, "or something along those lines". It all depends on the 
> specific code. I just haven't ever had any specific case where I felt like I 
> needed "with".

I mainly use it for initialization of things:

static S opCall(_x, _y)
{
	S s;
	with(s)
	{
		x = _x;
		y = _y;
		happiness = null;
	}
	return s;
}