proposal: allow 'with(Foo):' in addition to 'with(Foo){..}'

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 8/9/2014 1:04 PM, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> See email: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why? in 'digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
> <mailto:digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>' forum
> There's already an implementation proposed.


No other statement construct works like that, there doesn't seem to be much 
point to adding such a special case.