PROPOSAL: opSeq()

[downs]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> I believe Walter's response previously has been that we should just get
> used to looking at things like:
> 
>     my_for(i=0,i<10,i++,{<code>});
> 
> instead of adding complications to the grammar to support such things.
> 
> --bb

FWIW and just FYI, the least closing brackets can be done with my_for(i=0, i<10, i++) = {<code>}; using an overloaded opAssign.

To make it flexible, template opAssign and make it lazy to allow chaining; i.e. my_for(...) = your_for(...) = {<code>};

For example, I use this in dglut:
const string LazyCall="
  static if (is(T==void)) t();
  else static if (is(T==void delegate())) t()();
  else static assert(false, T.stringof);
";

Of course, I'd still rather have trailing DGs or full infix support. ^^

 --downs