On Saturday, 26 October 2024 at 08:28:43 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>Indeed why not use manifest constants?
Read the existing discussion.
October 31 Re: Allow Conditional Compilation Inside Enum Declaration | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kagamin | On Saturday, 26 October 2024 at 08:28:43 UTC, Kagamin wrote: >Indeed why not use manifest constants? Read the existing discussion. |
October 31 Re: Allow Conditional Compilation Inside Enum Declaration | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to IchorDev | On Saturday, 30 March 2024 at 14:57:00 UTC, IchorDev wrote: >To declare an enum type that may or may not have one or more members depending on conditional compilation statements requires duplicating the entire enum:
For an enum type with many members—or many conditionals—this quickly becomes an insane amount of repetition. The logical solution is to just allow conditional compilation statements inside enums:
Yesterday I was thinking to add that feature to another language (understand "one where there's no implication", you can experiment and "nobody will loose money") and realized a problem that's not been raised before: That would make the grammar significantly more complex. For now the body of a "EnumDeclaration" can only contain "EnumMembers", whereas if you permit "StaticIfDecl" or "VersionDecl" then you also have to special case those in order to be sure that they can only contain EnumMembers. |