C++ guys hate static_if?

[monarch_dodra]

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 09:41:42 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 09:12:30 UTC, Jouko Koski wrote:
>> "Walter Bright"  wrote:
>>
>>> Many of the criticisms in the paper are addressed by our 
>>> positive experience with static if in D.
>>
>> Sometimes I do find it confusing that { does or does not 
>> introduce a new scope in a very similar-looking contexts.
>
> Is there more constructs than static if that doesn't create a 
> scope?

"Labeled scopes" (ironically) don't create scopes. Eg:

//----
some_label:
{
     int a;
     //Code code code
}
a = 5;
goto some_label;
//----

That doesn't actually create a new scope, and that assignement is 
legal game.

This is from the official documentation, so it is not a bug. I 
can't, for the  life of me, understand why it is that way, in 
particular, since it deviates from C. I see it as a "never 
better, sometimes worst" approach.

I've tried to ask about it before, but I best, the answer I got 
was "works as documented", but still have no idea on the why :/ 
???

And since goto is "evil", I think very few people care, so 
getting any kind of activity about this is hard.