RFC: 2 enhancement DIPs that need feedback

[Basile B.]

On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:29:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:23:27 UTC, Monkyyy wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 May 2025 at 23:13:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> Hello, I've been working on a couple different DIPs that 
>>> propose various enhancements to D.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> I think dip 2 is far more important, dip 1 has work arounds 
>> and I dislike the complexity around constructors as is
>
> Please leave your feedback in the respective threads I linked. 
> Thank you!

I'll drop a comment here anyway because it doesn't fit to the DIP 
section I think.

D really needs "variable declaration" as expressions. My opinion 
is that here you are again faced to a special case that the 
general case, i.e "variable declaration" as expression, would 
have solved.

```d
(auto a, auto b) = call(); // two VarDeclExp in the LHS
```

Let me enumerate all the cases we have now. You can exceptionally 
declare variable as expression in

- the IfStatement
- the WithStatement
- the WhileStatement
- the SwitchStatement

and now what is proposed is another case: as tuple element.

Cant just people open their eyes ? That language construct tends 
to become a well defined expression.

A little joke to finish, I occasionally use that thing to count 
if something new is worth:

```d
printf("for the %dnth time\n", static int count++);
```

Yeah that kind of things work when you have "variable 
declaration" as expression.