• Bill Baxter (17/17) Dec 07 2007 Another possibility occured to me.
• Janice Caron (12/13) Dec 08 2007 I'd want to keep the ability to make new types. I grant you that D's
• guslay (2/4) Dec 08 2007 How about "magic"?
• Craig Black (4/9) Dec 09 2007 Or wildebeast
• Janice Caron (4/6) Dec 10 2007 Best idea so far! But it's spelt "wildebeest".
• sambeau (6/16) Dec 10 2007 how about 'def', 'define' or 'let'?
• Simen Kjaeraas (4/21) Dec 10 2007 wildebeest is better. Or elephant. Those are even more constant, with =

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Another possibility occured to me.
Get rid of the keyword enum and replace it with something that would 
better describe the full scope of the new proposed usages.

For a time, we add a new keyword.  But slowly phase out enum.  Maybe 
issue deprecation warnings after 6 months, then make it a deprecation 
error after a year.  Something like that.

So what to call the new "enum" replacer?

"constant"?

And maybe the actual automatically numbered meaning of enum would have a 
slightly different syntax.  Something to say "hey enumerate these".  I 
think that can be done without another keyword.  If no other means then 
by a paren option like "constant(enum)".

Thoughts?

Really I have no problem merging the /concepts/ of enum and manifest 
constants.  That really does make sense.  The problem is just the actual 
keyword involved here.

--bb

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

On 12/8/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:
 Thoughts?

I'd want to keep the ability to make new types. I grant you that D's
enums aren't proper enums, but they still let me pretend that they
are:

    enum MyType { /*...*/ }

    MyType x;

My preference would be leave enums as-is, although perhaps it would be
nice to forbid overlapping values (e.g. enum { x=3, y=3 }), and also
to forbid enums which have fewer than two entries (thereby forcing
people /not/ to use them for manifest constants).

...and to come up with a different syntax for manifest constants.

If Walter doesn't like final, alias, macro, define or let, how about "manifest"?

guslay <guslay gmail.com> writes:

 
 If Walter doesn't like final, alias, macro, define or let, how about
"manifest"?

How about "magic"?

magic int number = 42;

"Craig Black" <craigblack2 cox.net> writes:

"guslay" <guslay gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fjeu7m$i0$1 digitalmars.com...
 If Walter doesn't like final, alias, macro, define or let, how about 
 "manifest"?

 How about "magic"?

 magic int number = 42;

Or wildebeast

wildebeast int num = 42; 

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

On Dec 9, 2007 11:56 PM, Craig Black <craigblack2 cox.net> wrote:
 Or wildebeast

 wildebeast int num = 42;

Best idea so far! But it's spelt "wildebeest".

    wildebeest num = 42;

LOL

sambeau <no-spam-for-sambeau mac.com> writes:

Janice Caron Wrote:

 On Dec 9, 2007 11:56 PM, Craig Black <craigblack2 cox.net> wrote:
 Or wildebeast

 wildebeast int num = 42;

 
 Best idea so far! But it's spelt "wildebeest".
 
     wildebeest num = 42;
 
 LOL

how about 'def', 'define' or 'let'?

define num = 42;
def X { A=3, B, C }

let num = 42;
let X { A=3, B, C }

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:44:22 +0100, sambeau <no-spam-for-sambeau mac.com=
  =

wrote:

 Janice Caron Wrote:

 On Dec 9, 2007 11:56 PM, Craig Black <craigblack2 cox.net> wrote:
 Or wildebeast

 wildebeast int num =3D 42;

 Best idea so far! But it's spelt "wildebeest".

     wildebeest num =3D 42;

 LOL

 how about 'def', 'define' or 'let'?

 define num =3D 42;
 def X { A=3D3, B, C }

 let num =3D 42;
 let X { A=3D3, B, C }

wildebeest is better. Or elephant. Those are even more constant, with  =

their big size.