static switch

[Timon Gehr]

On 03/05/2014 07:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/5/14, 10:45 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 at 18:39:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Doesn't enable anything. There'd be a ton more juice in a static
>>> foreach; it would enable a lot of great idioms. We should pursue that
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Btw, are there any unexpected design difficulties with static foreach?
>> Or it is just waiting for someone to do the pull request?
>
> The one difficulty is figuring how to allow for all iterations to stay
> in the same scope, yet not have duplicate definitions of the iteration
> symbol.

static if needs exactly the same thing, currently the following compiles:

static if(is(int A)){}
A b; // meh

It's pretty easy to solve: Just give static if/static foreach it's own 
scope, but by default forward symbol insertions to the enclosing scope. 
Symbols introduced by the construct itself are inserted directly into 
its scope and not forwarded.

> Probably worth a DIP. Other than that, we're a go.
>
> Andrei
>

I will create it this weekend if nobody beats me to it.