static foreach (Was: Re: static switch)

[captaindet]

On 2014-03-06 16:06, bearophile wrote:
> Timon Gehr:
>
>> No. static foreach does not introduce a new scope.
>> "TypeTuple"-foreach does. Deprecating this language feature is not
>> in scope of the 'static foreach' DIP. It's separate, and I'd even
>> argue for not doing it.
>
> My most basic point in this ER is to require a "static" before
> "foreach" when you loop on TypeTuples, because the current situation
> is confusing for newbies and makes D code less explicit:
> https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4085
>
> Introducing a third type of foreach that is intermediate between the
> semantucs of the regular foreach and the already present typetuple
> foreach is ridiculous, will increase the language complexity and will
> make D and even more confusing for newbies.
>
> Bye, bearophile

+1