On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 14:03:51 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 00:34:03 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
> >I don't think it's a misconception. It's more like a complete lack of clarity.
>the goal is not to use an anonymous enum, the goal is to leverage the robust type system to avoid repeting yourself, wich is bad
Value value;
value.type = ValueType.STRING;
vs
Value value;
value.type = .STRING;
This is another case of the "complete lack of clarity" I wrote about in my earlier comment. With an anonymous enum you could write
value.type = STRING;
Maybe you have something deeper in mind, but that example does not make a case for changing the language. Rather than shouting, you should put together a better example.
I will let this conversation die. I don't think it's going to resolve anything (and I'm not the one that needs convincing anyway).
Ok.. so you refuse to understand (as opposed to not understanding, wich in that case you'd only have to listen and learn)
You didn't read my previous comment, so let me copy/paste it:
>the goal is not to use an anonymous enum, the goal is to leverage the robust type system to avoid repeting yourself, wich is bad
And to make sure i'm being understood, the goal is not to make code less verbose, quite the opposite, the goal is to encourage verbosity while avoiding useless repetitions, the two are not compatible
Are you familiar with this popular quote? "democracy dies in darkness"? It goes the same way with discussing feature suggestions and language impromvents, don't "let this conversation die", convince me, argument, don't just try to silence me, that won't work