Puzzled by this behavior

[FeepingCreature]

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 22:48:55 UTC, Don Allen wrote:
> My concern is not "solving this". My concern is whether the 
> language is clean and consistent so I can have mental model of 
> it I can rely upon, rather than constantly searching through 
> documentation to learn how a particular special case is 
> handled. I also care a lot about writing readable code, and 
> about being able to limit the visibility of variables to just 
> the scope that needs them and no more. The workarounds you cite 
> frankly feel like hacks to me, ugly ways of working around 
> problems in the language design.
>
> /Don
>
>>
>> -Steve

IMO this is completely internally consistent. Your mental model 
of a function should be a tree of scopes; your mental model of a 
module should be a lazily resolved key-value store. They're just 
fundamentally different things.

You can make function scopes behave similar to global scopes, ie. 
void delegate() foo; void bar() { foo(); } foo = { ... };, but 
then you just move the compiletime error to runtime: ie. void 
delegate() foo; foo(); You're basically manually implementing 
dynamic scoping. But D is lexically scoped for functions, not 
just with nested functions but with every language element. 
*Modules* are the exception - or rather, modules are just a 
fundamentally different thing.