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

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:29:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>  1. labels
>  2. case statements
>  3. default statements
>  4. ?: expressions
>
> and overloading this with more meanings is, in my 
> not-so-humble-opinion, not a good idea given the very marginal 
> benefit it might have.

  5. Access permissions (public/private/protected).
  6. File length attributes (@safe: @system: @trusted:)

  But in all cases (except 4), the final symbol is the colon, and 
it's effect lasts for that scope unless overridden. I don't see 
how it would be making things all that much more complex. Unlike 
with templates in C++ where the <>'s were overloaded for a new 
(and completely unrelated) confusing purpose, the :'s use 
wouldn't really change, and it would remain the last symbol for 
it's declaration.

  Although I'm not sure how much it adds for complexity to the 
compiler (if any).