Let's get the semantic around closure fixed.

[Walter Bright]

On 5/18/2021 9:47 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> Long story short: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21929
> 
> Closure do not respect scope the way they should. Let's fix it.

Let's rewrite it to something that does not use closures:

  int test() @safe {
     int j;
     int*[20] ps;

     for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
         ps[j++] = &i;
     }

     for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
         int index = i;
         ps[j++] = &index;
     }

     int x;
     foreach (p; ps)  {
         x += *p;
     }

     return x;
  }

This code is equivalent in terms of what is happening with references and scopes.

Compiling it with -dip1000 yields:

   Error: address of variable i assigned to ps with longer lifetime
   Error: address of variable index assigned to ps with longer lifetime

Which is pragmatically what the behavior of the delegate example would be, 
because the delegate is also storing a pointer to the variable.