On 04/03/2012 07:38 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Regarding this:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=790
I submit that nested functions should be exempt from the usual sequential
visibility rules. (Therefore, mutually recursive nested functions would
become possible.)
Or at the very *least*, this horrific C-like workaround should be possible:
void foo()
{
void b();
void a() {...};
void b() {...};
}
...Flame away! ;)
This is the right way to work around this issue. It works now and does
not imply any kind of overhead at runtime:
void foo(){
void a()(){ ... }
void b() { ... }
}
However, I agree. Local functions that appear directly in sequence
should be able to forward-reference each other. If some functions
appearing in such a sequence have identical names, they should overload
against each other.