http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4085



--- Comment #10 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2013-08-22 16:50:01 PDT ---
Adapted from two comments by Timon Gehr:

> It's important to keep them separate regardless. static foreach is close to useless if it introduces a new scope for its body.
> 
> I.e.:
> 
> int main() {
>     foreach (_; Seq!int) {
>         int x;
>     }
>     return x; // error
> }
> 
> int main() {
>     static foreach (_; Seq!int) {
>         int x;
>     }
>     return x; // ok
> }
> 
> I think the relationship between foreach and static foreach should essentially mirror that of if and static if.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4085



--- Comment #11 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2013-08-22 16:53:06 PDT ---
Another comment by Timon Gehr:

> We really need to define a consistent semantics for compile time symbol manipulation though.
>
> Eg:
>
> class C{
>     int a;
>     static foreach(x;__traits(allMembers,C)){
>         mixin("int "~__traits(identifier,x)~"b;");
>     }
> }
>
> What is this supposed to do? "class C{ int a,ab; }"? Non-terminating compilation? Error?
>
> My best guess is that the above code should be illegal,

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------