Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
etc)

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
> use with(Foo){...} ?
> It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
> etc)

ping, anyone?

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
>> use with(Foo){...} ?
>> It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
>> etc)
>
> ping, anyone?

Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while `extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.

But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple rewriting rule.

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
>> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>> Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
>>> use with(Foo){...} ?
>>> It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
>>> etc)
>>
>> ping, anyone?
>
> Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while `extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
>
> But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple rewriting rule.

It's surprisingly easy to implement:
https://github.com/schuetzm/dmd/commit/b11368be183fd9b299508722cf8e9c32df2f1ac5

If you think it's useful, you can suggest it on digitalmars.D. If it is well-received, I can add some tests and update the documentation.

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
>> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>> Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
>>> use with(Foo){...} ?
>>> It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
>>> etc)
>>
>> ping, anyone?
>
> Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while `extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
>
> But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple rewriting rule.

Also a way to cancel such...

  struct Foo {
  @nogc:

    void bar() {
      with (someEnum):
      // ...
      !:with (someEnum)  // ?
      // ...
    }

  !:@nogc  // ?

    void gcFunction() { /*...*/ }
  }

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:52:02 UTC, Messenger wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
>>> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>>> Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
>>>> use with(Foo){...} ?
>>>> It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
>>>> etc)
>>>
>>> ping, anyone?
>>
>> Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while `extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
>>
>> But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple rewriting rule.
>
> Also a way to cancel such...
>
>   struct Foo {
>   @nogc:
>
>     void bar() {
>       with (someEnum):
>       // ...
>       !:with (someEnum)  // ?
>       // ...
>     }
>
>   !:@nogc  // ?
>
>     void gcFunction() { /*...*/ }
>   }

with(x):
without(x); // cancel
without(); // cancel following with() declarations order.


with(x):
    with(y):
        with(z):

        without()// no more z
        without(x) // no more x
without() // only one remaining so no more y

But isn't the with expression considered as a bad practice (whatever the lang. is) ?

 I've given my thoughts on the D section. It would be heavily useful as a shorthand for enums you plan on using a lot in a switch case or something, beyond that it could be troublesome...