• Russell Lewis (8/8) Dec 09 2007 inline int x = 3;
• Craig Black (3/11) Dec 09 2007 I like it.
• Robert Fraser (3/13) Dec 09 2007 You mean semantic error? But now we're just talking semantics...
• Janice Caron (6/7) Dec 10 2007 Isn't this exactly the same idea as
• Bill Baxter (9/19) Dec 10 2007 The idea is: if we're going to change the meaning of enum completely why...
• Robert Fraser (10/19) Dec 10 2007 No it's not. With inline or wildbeast, you can create blocks:

Russell Lewis <webmaster villagersonline.com> writes:

inline int x = 3;

Where the "inline" keyword means "the compiler is free to not allocate 
any storage for this constant."  In particular, this means that it would 
be a syntax error to either:
	1) Take the address of an inline constant
	2) Change its value

Whether or not the compiler actually inlines all instances or not is 
implementation-specific.

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

"Russell Lewis" <webmaster villagersonline.com> wrote in message 
news:fjill0$2jnc$1 digitalmars.com...
 inline int x = 3;

 Where the "inline" keyword means "the compiler is free to not allocate any 
 storage for this constant."  In particular, this means that it would be a 
 syntax error to either:
 1) Take the address of an inline constant
 2) Change its value

 Whether or not the compiler actually inlines all instances or not is 
 implementation-specific.

I like it. 

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Russell Lewis wrote:
 inline int x = 3;
 
 Where the "inline" keyword means "the compiler is free to not allocate 
 any storage for this constant."  In particular, this means that it would 
 be a syntax error to either:
     1) Take the address of an inline constant
     2) Change its value
 
 Whether or not the compiler actually inlines all instances or not is 
 implementation-specific.

You mean semantic error? But now we're just talking semantics...

Anyways, it's a good idea.

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

On Dec 10, 2007 7:18 AM, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote:
 Anyways, it's a good idea.

Isn't this exactly the same idea as

    enum int x = 3;

but with "inline" instead of "enum"? Aren't we done arguing over what
the word should be?

I think we should just go with Craig's wildebeest idea! :-)

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 On Dec 10, 2007 7:18 AM, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote:
 Anyways, it's a good idea.

 
 Isn't this exactly the same idea as
 
     enum int x = 3;
 
 but with "inline" instead of "enum"? Aren't we done arguing over what
 the word should be?

The idea is: if we're going to change the meaning of enum completely why 
not just replace it with a different word that describes the entirety of 
it's new job and phase out the word "enum".  That way there's no net 
increase in keywords but we get a more descriptive language.

 I think we should just go with Craig's wildebeest idea! :-)

I think inline is a pretty good suggestion.  And inline(enum) could be 
used to trigger enumeration behavior.

But it'll never happen.

--bb

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 On Dec 10, 2007 7:18 AM, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote:
 Anyways, it's a good idea.

 
 Isn't this exactly the same idea as
 
     enum int x = 3;
 
 but with "inline" instead of "enum"? Aren't we done arguing over what
 the word should be?

No it's not. With inline or wildbeast, you can create blocks:

wildbeast
{
     int mufasa = 99999999999999L;
     string aslan = "i can has cheezburger?";
}

This can't be done with enum. SOme other word besides enum, final or 
alias needs to be found, IMO, since enum can't create blocks, and final 
used on blocks would have different meanings for vars and member functions.