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

Tejas notrealemail at gmail.com
Thu Oct 14 07:12:29 UTC 2021

On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 02:58:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> On 10/13/21 4:13 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> 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?
> You're right. The `while (type)` and `while (type):` at top 
> level is probably good to salvage.

Maybe having the syntax as:
with <construct> as <identifier>{
     //do stuff
Would be better?
It could also be useful in `Python` style management for `file` 
handles, plus be visually distinct enough from other uses of 
`with` to not simply be overlooked.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list