> On 8/4/11 10:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday 04 August 2011 07:33:55 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> On 8/4/11 12:16 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >>> So, does anyone actually have an opinion on this? Should we fix the > >>> names or not? > >> > >> We should probably fix the names. A migration path is to simply keep > >> both names for a year or so and remove documentation for old names. For > >> example: > >> > >> enum Variadic { > >> > >> no, /// doc > >> NO = no, > >> c, /// doc > >> C = c, > >> d, /// doc > >> D = d, > >> typesafe, /// doc > >> TYPESAFE = typesafe > >> > >> } > > > > Except that that breaks any code that does something like > > EnumMembers!Variadic. For some enums, that probably wouldn't break > > anyone's code. But you can't know for sure whether anyone is using > > EnumMembers on a particular enum. It would also change the values of > > the enums, which could also break code, which wouldn't be an issue for > > some enums, but it might be for some (and someone could always have been > > foolish and relied on their exact values). > > The values are not changed, but point taken about introspection.
Ah, yes. You initialized them with each other. I didn't notice that or think of it (though I probably should have). But I think that the introspection issues are great enough to make that approach a bad one, as nice as it would be to just provide both names temporarily. - Jonathan M Davis