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

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/08/2014 9:34 p.m., "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
> 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.

I've had a need before for it in the past.
But I think a better idea might be:

void func(MyClass clasz) with(clasz) {

}

If you're using with as
funcdecl {
	with(value):
	with(value2):
	body
}
I'd be surprised.

But its mostly for /faking/ methods outside of class.