I have created before two threads about the weird semantics of labeled block statements. In a word: putting a label before a block means that block does not create a scope, and the variables created inside that scope will "leak" to the outside of said scope. I've found this to be problematic on several points:

1. No use case for this
2. You can accidentally break code by placing a label before a block (but without meaning to label the actual block)
3. Deviates from C.

What kind of bothers me most is the combination 1 & 3: Why??? I've complained about this before, and the answer was: "According to spec", but to the question "why are the specs like this", I have yet to get an answer.

----------------
The reason I'm bringing this up (again), is that it bit me in the ass very recently. According to TDPL:

"If a numeric expression compiles in the C language and also compiles in D, its
type will be the same in both languages (note that not all C expressions must be
accepted by D)."

Followed by

"Rule 1 makes things just a tad more complicated than they would otherwise be, but D overlaps enough with C and C++ to inspire people to simply copy and paste entire functions into D programs. Now it’s all right if D occasionally refuses to compile certain constructs for safety or portability reasons; but if it compiled that 2000-line encryption package and ran it with different results, life would definitely not be good for the hapless victim."

So basically, this is saying "If your C code compiles in D, you'll get the same result. I guarantee it :)"

Here's a (reduced) C program:

----
int i = 3;

void main()
{
  {
    int some_condition = 1;
    if ( some_condition )
      goto block_end;

    /* dummy code */
  } block_end:

  {
    int i = 7;
    printf("%i", i);
  }

  printf("%i", i);
}
----
C prints: "70"
D prints: "77"

Oops!

I realize 99% of people don't use goto or labels too much, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. For me, D has been about being a "smooth experience", and this makes so little sense to me it infuriates me.

I don't see how this could help anyone, but I do see how it can create bugs, and these kinds of cases are what D strives to avoid. "Fixing" would probably break nothing.

-------------------
I'd like to make a push to get the specs changed in regards to this. I'd like to get others' opinion on the matter, in particular, if anybody can think of a rationale for the current behavior. And if there is no rationale, how much support there is for changing it. (in which case I'll file the corresponding ER).