"Timon Gehr" <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote in message
news:jnhpvv$ih4$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 04/28/2012 11:04 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>
>> But how about:
>> alias thing = runSomeCtfe();
>>
>
> That would work in certain cases, where the initializer is not a single
> symbol. But then, I kinda like the way 'enum' is generalized in D:
>
> enum Foo{
> member1,
> member2,
> member3,
> }
>
> => (allow non-integral enumerations)
>
> enum Foo{
> member1 = "1",
> member2 = "2",
> member3 = "3",
> }
>
Those are good. They are essentially enumerations.
> => (anonymous enums)
>
> enum{
> member1 = "1",
> member2 = "2",
> member3 = "3",
> }
>
I don't think "anonymous enum" makes any sense at all. It's *not* an
enumeration by any stretch of the term, it's just a series of manifest
constants. The fact that they're grouped doesn't even have any semantic
consequence, as far as I'm aware.
> => (a single member is okay)
>
> enum{
> member1 = "1",
> }
>
> => (syntactic sugar)
>
> enum member1 = "1";
>
Just simpler examples of the above, which isn't any form of enumeration at
all.
>> And bring the usual alias to new_name = <something>;
>> form (even C++ finally got this right with C++11 aliases).
>>
>
> This is probably something that should be done.
>
Emphatic +1
I always have to stop and think carefully about the order when I write an
alias.
>
> Implementing a compiler is probably harder for D, because of the interplay
> of forward references, CTFE and compile time introspection.
>
Those make D more difficult to implement than many languages, but OTOH,
AIUI, C++ has some real nightmarish details with templates and even just
simply parsing. Probably some other bizarre cruft, too. IIRC, I think
Walter's occasionally mentioned something about the...overload rules?
