Re: Nested functions should be exempt from sequential visibility rules

[Timon Gehr]

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.