DMD 1.039 and 2.023 releases

[bearophile]

Brad Roberts:

> Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want {...}
> to not form a scope?

Recently I have shown a possible syntax for express general unsafeties in D code, for example:

unsafe (bounds, overflow) {
  ... // here there's no array bound checks, not integral overflow checks
}

I think this safe(...){...} and unsafe(...){...} don't need to form a scope, like static if.

--------------------------

Bill Baxter:

>I do think it would be nice if there was some kind of alternate non-scope block delimiter syntax in D. When you have static ifs mixed with regular ifs and versions it starts to be pretty difficult to see the flow of things. Something like
static if (x) ::
     some stuff
::<

Probably I don't understand that syntax. A more full example may help me understand it. But if I understand it correctly, then I don't like that syntax. The {} add a little of noise, but help you know for sure inside where you are (the alternative, if the indenting level are low enough is of course the Python stile). Your style (if I understand it correctly) reminds me the way you use in Pascal to define compiler directives in blocks of code, and it leads to troubles compared to the static if {} of D.

Bye,
bearophile