proposal: allow 'with(Foo):' in addition to 'with(Foo){..}'

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 10 August 2014 at 08:12:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/9/2014 1:04 PM, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> See email: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why? in

> No other statement construct works like that, there doesn't 
> seem to be much point to adding such a special case.

  Guess it depends on the type. with(): would act a lot like 
private/public labels. I can see uses; Although it would mostly 
be to keep code cleaner rather than adding more functionality. 
Depends on how many pesky extra braces you want to avoid...

enum Flags {a,b,c,readonly,write,etc}

void func(Flags f){
   switch(f) {
     with(Flags):   //or put this outside the switch...
     case a:        //Flags.a:
     case b:        //Flags.b:
     case c:        //Flags.c:
     case readonly: //Flags.readonly:
     case write:    //Flags.write:
   }
}

  Honestly i'd probably want to use multiple enum types at the 
same time, so it would be with(type1,type2,type3, etc):. This 
assumes it doesn't clash in the following code. However i don't 
NEED it to work...