static foreach considered

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:12:06 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 21:32:52 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> I think the body should have access to a scope that is hidden 
>> from the outside which contains the loop variable, but 
>> declarations should be inserted into the enclosing scope like 
>> for static if.
>
> This would require some syntax to mark the declarations we want 
> to expose. Maybe `out`?
>
> This is far better than the mixin template approach, since 
> it'll alert us early about conflicts:
>
>     static foreach (ident; ["a", "b", "a"])
>     {
>         int mixin(ident ~ "1");
>         out int mixin(ident ~ "2");
>     }
>
> `a1` is created twice, but that's OK since it isn't marked with 
> `out`. `a2` is declared twice and raises a compilation error 
> because it's marked with `out`. This will ensure these kind of 
> errors are detected early and the compilation error points to 
> the exact place of declaration.

     static foreach (ident; ["a", "b", "a"])
     {
         private int mixin(ident ~ "1");
         int mixin(ident ~ "2");
     }