On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 00:34:03 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
I don't think it's a misconception. It's more like a complete
lack of clarity.
the goal is not to use an anonymous enum, the goal is to
leverage the robust type system to avoid repeting yourself,
wich is bad
```
Value value;
value.type = ValueType.STRING;
```
vs
```
Value value;
value.type = .STRING;
```
This is another case of the "complete lack of clarity" I wrote
about in my earlier comment. With an anonymous enum you could
write
```
value.type = STRING;
```
Maybe you have something deeper in mind, but that example does
not make a case for changing the language. Rather than shouting,
you should put together a better example.
I will let this conversation die. I don't think it's going to
resolve anything (and I'm not the one that needs convincing
anyway).
