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

[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 
>> 'digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
>> <mailto:digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>' forum
>> There's already an implementation proposed.
>
>
> No other statement construct works like that, there doesn't 
> seem to be much point to adding such a special case.

It's possible to add this syntax for any statement, then `with` 
wouldn't be a special case :-P But this wouldn't be a good idea 
IMO. With `if` and loops, it would hurt readability.

On the other hand, `with` might be useful. It would be used 
similar to `using namespace` in C++, and it would (almost) always 
appear at the start of a scope.