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

[Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 12:25:52 UTC, Artur Skawina via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> What you're really looking for is context dependent access to 
> the target scope. That would work for statics and enums, but 
> would probably require a new syntax (it becomes too misleading 
> and/or ambiguous otherwise).

> Not pretty, but sometimes useful when you have a lot of such 
> elements and/or when they are generated from DSLs.

  I hoped i could give a relative use case for with(): that could 
avoid using lots of braces to get the data across without heavy 
verbose duplication. With the bulk static data that has to be 
entered manually, it quickly gets ugly that it's F.A F.B F.C F.D 
every few lines when you know A, B C & D's presence is enough to 
describe what it's doing.

  Honestly i can live without with():, but after it's been 
presented and i consider what it could mean, i can't help but 
want it. Yeah it's probably limited of when it's actually useful, 
but for static data and constants and enums that literally 
removes 10-20k from my source file dropping it from 60-70k to 50k 
or smaller, that means a lot to me.