Should D have control-flow expressions? IS it possible?

[Basile B.]

On Thursday, 10 September 2026 at 06:56:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, is this reasonably doable? I personally want it for 
> switch expressions (or Rikki's proposed .match statement, which 
> I think lowers to a tree of ternary expressions similarly to 
> what my POC does).

The problem is about algorithmic complexity. D does the flow 
analysis at the statement level. That way you dont have to 
explore the whole sub-expressions to create the "basic blocks".

You can allow expressions to change the flow, but this is a 
serious shift. For example Zig does that. In the past they had a 
lot of bugs related to the way they mix expressions and 
statements.