"with" should be deprecated with extreme prejudice

[Ary Borenszweig]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
>> news:a6268ff5f5d8cba54f824da454 at news.digitalmars.com...
>>> Hello Nick,
>>>
>>>> I'm not a touch-typer, but I've never seen much of a point to "with".
>>>> If I have to access a bunch of members of
>>>> "foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle", I'll just do "auto fizz = 
>>>> foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle;" and use that, or put it into
>>> that dosn't work if it's by value and is used as an Lvalue.
>>>
>>>> a function that takes a "typeof(fizze)", or do something else along
>>> like this? that looks... odd.
>>>
>>> void outer()
>>> {
>>>     void inner(ref T t)
>>>     {
>>>          t.somthing;
>>>          ...
>>>     }
>>>     inner(foo.member.x.bar[17].fizzle);
>>> }
>>>
>>>> those lines. I've yet to come across a case where something like
>>>> that isn't perfectly sufficient.
>>>>
>>
>> Like I said, "or something along those lines". It all depends on the 
>> specific code. I just haven't ever had any specific case where I felt 
>> like I needed "with".
> 
> I mainly use it for initialization of things:
> 
> static S opCall(_x, _y)
> {
>     S s;
>     with(s)
>     {
>         x = _x;
>         y = _y;
>         happiness = null;
>     }
>     return s;
> }

Because of that, C# added the following syntax:

new S {
   x = _x,
   y = _y,
};

And I think that could replace "with" with no problem, because most of 
the time (or all of the time) you use it when initializing an object.