A couple of extensions to `with` that would be worthwhile

[Timon Gehr]

On 10/13/21 1:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We can improve the `with` statement as follows:

I don't think this is an "improvement" of the `with` statement. It's a 
completely novel feature that happens to be syntactically very close to 
the existing `with` statement. There's an obvious meaning for the new 
syntax as an extension of the existing feature, but it is not what you 
propose. Not great. Maybe there is a better way to address this problem?