On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 August 2013 at 01:33:51 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
>
>> that's not DRY: in my use case, a group of functions use certain imports,
>> it would be annoying and not DRY to do that. What I suggest (allowing {}
>> grouping at module scope) seems simple and intuitive; any reason it can't
>> be done?
>>
>
> How do you ensure that the imports are limited to your {} scope, but your
> functions are not, without a finnicky special case for how scopes work?
>
granted, that's not ideal. How about the other points I mentioned?
void fun(){
version=A;
version(none):
}
