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

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 10 August 2014 at 08:29:14 UTC, Brian Schott 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.
>
> ---
> static if (true):
> 	alias A = B;
> ---
>
> ---
> static if (true)
> 	alias A = B;
> else:
> 	alias A = C;
> 	alias D = E;
> ---

Stop trying to turn D into Python. It's not gonna happen.