On 22.04.2017 13:54, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1005 is titled "Dependency-Carrying Declarations".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1005.md
All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in
this thread. Due to DConf taking place during the review period, the
period will be extended by a week. The review period will end at 11:59
PM ET on May 13 (3:59 AM GMT on May 14), or when I make a post declaring
it complete.
At the end of Round 1, if further review is deemed necessary, the DIP
will be scheduled for another round. Otherwise, because the DIP comes
from a language author and no formal review period by the language
authors is necessary, the DIP will be marked "Accepted" or "Rejected" at
the author's discretion.
An extensive discussion regarding this DIP has already taken place [1].
Thanks in advance to all who participate.
Destroy!
[1] http://forum.dlang.org/thread/o2psvk$1m96$1...@digitalmars.com?page=1
"* Inside any function, all uses of with are statements and obey the
current language rules.
* Everywhere else, ..."
"* Inside any function, with (Import ImportList) is a statement that
introduces a scope. Inside the with, lookup considers the import local
to the declaration (similar to the current handling of nested imports).
* Everywhere else, ..."
Please don't do this.
"This extension removes an unforced limitation of the current with
syntax (allows it to occur at top level)"
No, it does not. It introduces two more incompatible syntaxes that look
the same, yet are different.
"The drawback of this choice is the potentially confusing handling of
scopes: the with statement introduces a scope, whereas the with
declaration does not."
It's not merely confusing, it's frustrating. I might legitimately want
to use the new feature on a local declaration. As an analogy, just
imagine how frustrating it would be if 'static if' was written as 'if'
with different meaning depending on the scope.
Just associate actual syntax to the the scope handling. The proposal
would be sane if it instead introduced a new 'static with' construct
that actually has the same meaning in every context.
This is how it works for static if, and it is also how it will work for
static foreach, so it is even consistent with other language features.
