"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:it32kq$2gfq$2...@digitalmars.com... > On 6/12/11 1:59 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message >> news:it1cvf$21d4$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> >>> 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!!!" >>> > > I'm not sure, but I think I see a sarcasm in there. >
I guess it could be taken that way, but it wasn't really my point to be sarcastic. My intent was just to summarize the way I see the situation.