On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 18:24:27 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 2017-11-28 03:20, Michael V. Franklin wrote: > > For those who might want to know, Walter has informed me that this > > change will require a DIP. > > That's unfortunate. It should be the opposite, a DIP on why enum members > should not support attributes. It goes against consistency (turtles all > the way down).
For better or worse, Walter and Andrei seem to have gotten into a mode where just about any language change which isn't an outright bug fix requires a DIP. And a lack of turtles all the way down someplace is not really a bug fix (especially since it's sometimes debatable as to whether it's desirable in a particular case or whether something actually qualifies as being an issue with turtles all the way down; it's not always clearcut). However, a lack of consistency _is_ often a good argument - particularly if it's a lack of turtles all the way down consistency; arguments along those lines are how we ended up with stuff like local imports. So, if it's really that clear that enums really should be allowed to have attributes, then the DIP will probably be accepted. - Jonathan M Davis