On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 07:58:13 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

That is patently false. Javascript? C#?

It is true of some languages, such as python, but this is because in python, variable scope is always the top level in the function.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 13:30:15 UTC, zjh wrote:

Since we all use d language, you have to feedback and repair it. If you don't make effort to it, you can only see other languages surpass you, and there's nothing you can do.
Since we all use d language, we are all on the same boat.
If D language is not good, everyone has to suffer.
Therefore, the 'd' language community should not be too loose, but should be organized.
Everyone can partially uses their spare time to serve for 'd'.Of course,'D' officials can pay according to their ability.
Without money, you can give honor, right?

D man should organize, otherwise D users are losers.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 13:34:07 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

I do recall that C# has the same problem. Or at least had in Unity, ~6 years ago. I work around it this way (pseudocode, didn't test this):

foreach (i; 0..10)
{ auto makeDelegate(size_t closureVar)
  { return ()
    { // closureVar is i, but will be different for each iteration
    };
  };

  doSomethingWithDelegate(makeDelegate(i));
}

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:51:43 UTC, Dukc wrote:

DIP1000 is bad. It can detect a few trivial case, but beside that, it is unable to detect anything. As a result, it cannot solve this specific problem, only simple instance of it. The expect impact is therefore an increase in the complexity of the language without providing the kind of value you'd expect out of it.

I was told to submit bug report, but this is not a bug. There is no amount of bug that you can fix in DIP1000 to make it do what it is supposed to do. Just like there is no amount of bug report I can submit to a regex that tries to parse D.

I have no doubt this is going to happen though, and it will break tools and code, and it won't bring the value that it is supposed to, because it can't, and validate everything in this thread. I hope you prove me wrong, please do.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 13:49:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

foreach (i; 0..10)
{ auto makeDelegate(size_t closureVar)
  { return ()
    { // closureVar is i, but will be different for each iteration
    };
  };

  doSomethingWithDelegate(makeDelegate(i));
}

This was fixed in C#5, in 2012, so 10 years ago.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 13:34:07 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

Javascript, yes:

function foo() {
    var cb = null;
    for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
        if (!cb) {
            cb = function() { console.log("Hello World " + i); };
            cb();
        }
    }
    cb();
}
foo();

Hello World 0
Hello World 10

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 15:15:13 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

function foo() {
    var cb = null;
    for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
        if (!cb) {
            cb = function() { console.log("Hello World " + i); };
            cb();
        }
    }
    cb();
}
foo();

Now try this and tell me how it goes:

function foo() {
    var cb = null;
    for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
        let n = i;
        if (!cb) {
            cb = function() { console.log("Hello World " + n); };
            cb();
        }
    }
    cb();
}
foo();

If you are capturing i and mutating it, then i is going to be mutated at the end. It says nothing about captures.