Puzzled by this behavior

[Don Allen]

On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 15:15:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 22:48:55 UTC, Don Allen wrote:
>> Well, I would argue that that kind of thinking leads to a 
>> language that is a collection of special cases, rather than a 
>> language built on a core set of principles consistently 
>> applied.
>>
>
> While I agree that sometime, D takes the road of many special 
> cases, if you take a step back, you'll that this really doesn't 
> help your case, to the contrary. You are arguing for special 
> casing function scope to allow out of order symbol resolution 
> in special circumstances.

I said I was done, but this really needs a response because you 
have gotten what I am talking about completely wrong, 
particularly in your last sentence above.

I repeat: I am arguing for consistent treatment of the ability to 
do mutual recursion, regardless of context. If D handled this the 
C way -- functions must be defined before they can be referenced 
in another function definition -- and did so in all contexts, I'd 
be less troubled than I am by the current situation, in which we 
have one treatment at module and structure level and the opposite 
within functions.

I could not care less about "helping my case"; my situation 
involves one inner function calling another, so the functions 
aren't even mutually recursive, and is easily resolved by just 
interchanging the order in which the functions are defined. My 
purpose in writing about this has never been about how to fix my 
little issue. It's concern about what I consider an error in the 
language design.