Static foreach bug?

[Neia Neutuladh]

On Monday, 3 September 2018 at 04:43:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 20:01:08 UTC, Neia Neutuladh 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 19:42:20 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>> Woud be so much more maintainable if I could have each 
>>> statement into a variable that could be maintained properly.
>>
>> You could extract the body of the static foreach into a 
>> [template] function.
>
> I'm aware of that, but it's an unnecessary work around for 
> something as trivial as the alternative would have been.

You would need to mark symbols as scoped to the static foreach 
body, or else as exported from a scope to an outer scope. So it's 
not exactly trivial.