On Sunday, 7 October 2012 at 09:22:17 UTC, Denis Shelomovskij
wrote:
I'd like to see enum syntax for flug enum. So I dislike
function calls like `set_flag`, `checkAll`, etc. (IMHO)
You mean... binary basic syntax? That shouldn't be too hard. So
something like..?
Flags x;
with(Flags) {
x += one; //setflag
x -= two; //clearflag
x ^= four;//flipflag
x += [one,two]; //set flags multiple, same with flipping and
clearing
x -= [one,two];
x ^= [one,two];
//append ~ seemingly would be unused, or equal to +
x = one; //reset completely to flag 'one'
assert(x[one]); //checking, feels like an AA
assert(!x[two]);
x[two] = true; //optionally secondary way to set flag
assert(x[one, two]); //only true if both are set.
Flags y, z;
z = x & y; //keep only flags within y
z = x | y; //copy flags of both x & y
z = x ^ y; //flip flags in x from y
}
This wouldn't be hard to add, but I was going for basic
functionality, the extras are easy to use/add afterwards :)
Probably for individual flags I'd use a template so when you
optimize it will give you the smallest executing size for your
results. Hmmm...
The else is the only one I'm seeing a problem implementing
easily, although using the built in types you can do it yourself.
I'm not going to add odd binary operators if it doesn't make
sense (Like shifting appending or slicing).
