On 11/6/2012 7:31 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-11-06 16:15, Walter Bright wrote:enum test = "test"; [test] void foo () {}or: enum EEE; [EEE] void foo() { }First, I didn't know you could have an empty enum. Second, that was my point. I don't like the need for a dummy/empty enum, or the use of a string literal.
I see your point, but if such was implemented that way, then the UDAs would be extremely limited, and there'd be all sorts of issues with name scoping. Pretty much all that would have to not only be reinvented, but reams of documentation would have to be crafted explaining how it is different from normal names.
