|Posted by bauss|
in reply to claptrap
Posted in reply to claptrap
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 12:27:41 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 09:37:43 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 05:55:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2022 6:47 PM, IchorDev wrote:
>>>> For instance, if everyone voted for "no syntax" then the poll would be useless to me.
>>> But it would tell you something useful.
>>> It would suggest a lot of people are wanting to explore semantic behavior instead. Such as Walter's alternative proposal idea.
>> If it's not implemented with .identifier then I will oppose it.
>> I don't buy the "it will break code" point of view either.
>> The only thing I can think of that will break is that .identifier already has a meaning today that means module scope.
>> But that could easily mean module AND "static/scoped" lookup and any ambiguity can be fixed by prioritization.
>> 1. module scope 2. enum 3. static members of ex. classes
>> So if you type .a then it will first look in module scope, then in enums that are in scope and at last within classes that are in scope.
> Why not an error if it's ambiguous? There are ways to specify which you want if needed. And its probably unlikely enough that occasionally having to specify the enum name is not anything to be concerned about.
An error with ambiguity is fine, BUT I think it shouldn't happen in the cases I provided, it should only happen in cases you have two symbols with same priority. So no error should be displayed if a global is named "a" and an enum member is named "a", BUT it should have an error if there are two enum members named "a", UNLESS there is also a global named "a".