const again

[Sean Kelly]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> One thing that concerns me.  If we assume that "enum x = 3" is simply 
>> shorthand for "enum { x = 3 }" then all such declarations would be 
>> implicitly typed as integers, which doesn't sound like you want.  It 
>> seems you're suggesting "enum" be treated more like a storage class 
>> here?  I'm not sure if I like that idea.
> 
> Why not
> 
> macro x = 3;

Assuming that we need a new keyword, I like "macro" better.  We're going 
to get it in 2.0 anyway, right?


Sean