== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article > On Sunday 23 January 2011 06:36:27 Sean Eskapp wrote: > > I get errors when working with nested functions and structs or scoped > > classes, because closures can't be used with anything with scoped > > destruction. This makes complete sense, but I don't even want the closure > > functionality of these nested functions. Personally, I would like to be > > able to opt-out of the closure functionality of nested functions: if the > > enclosing function exits, and a nested function thereof is called, then a > > segfault would occur when it tried to access the stack of its enclosing > > function; however, access of scoped-destruction variables from an > > enclosing-scope function would be fine. > > > > Thoughts? The not-being-able-to-access-scoped-destruction-variables thing > > is really getting to me, since one of the main driving features I like > > about D is the ability to use anonymous and nested functions. > If a nested function is marked as static, then it results in a function rather > than a delegate. Of course, that means that you can't access the enclosing > scope, but if you don't care about that, then just use static. > - Jonathan M Davis
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function has exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at the cost of making my delegate not a closure.