"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > It's the namespace pollution and the non-self-containedness of the > function that's most troublesome. Also see Steve's point about methods. > It's just untenable - to use the idiom with a class/struct method, you > need to go all the way _outside_ of it an plant a symbol there. >
You can't put an enum in a class/struct? > What I find most interesting is that the lack of strong counterarguments > has not stood in the way of a strong emotional response. Correction: Andrei's staunch dismissal of all counterarguments has not stood in the way of a strong emotional response. > This mood has made it difficult for exchange of rational arguments. Funny > thing is, the change is tiny. > > "Here, I'll add a handful of yes/no enums here and there in the standard > library, just to help some algorithms. More to come." > > "Yeah, sure, whatevs." > > "Here, there's a way to define them once so we don't need to define them > everywhere." > Correction: "Here, there's a way to solve a barely-existant problem by botching up syntax (and error messages) for the user." > "Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!" >
