"with" should be deprecated with extreme prejudice

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jason House wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
>> I think "with" is a very dangerous feature due to the way it hides
>>  symbols. It essentially makes the feeblest attempt at modular
>> reasoning utterly impossible:
>> 
>> int x, y; with (whatever) { y += x; ++x; }
>> 
>> What can be said about such code? Nothing. If whatever has or will
>> ever have fields x or y or both, the names will bind to them;
>> otherwise, they'll bind to the locals. Non-local code dependency at
>> its finest.
>> 
>> Maintenance of any type that is being used with "with" becomes a
>> very dangerous proposition because it can silently change meaning
>> of code.
>> 
>> I therefore submit that "with" is an extremely dangerous feature
>> and should be removed from the language. What say you?
>> 
>> 
>> Andrei
> 
> How about we keep in D's tradition and outlaw shadowing instead? I
> use "with" rarely, but appreciate it when I do.

That's a good alternative. At least if someone introduces a field name 
in the struct and that clashes with something you see, you'll have an error.

Andrei