Another foolish idea for manifest constants

[Robert Fraser]

Bruce Adams wrote:
> I didn't say it was better just an alternative that hadn't be raised.
> I read void as meaning something like "nothing/none/does not exist" so 
> its dictionary
> meaning fits.
> I am in the school that sees enums as a set (or list) of values and not 
> a hack to
> declare constants.

I don't care about the dictionary definition, I'm concerned that enum 
for manifest constants is syntactically different than other modifiers 
in that it can't be used in blocks. This is unexpected behavior. The 
word "enum[erate]" fits about as well as void, final, alias, etc., IMO.

> 
>> void str = "hello";
>>
>> ... it becomes a semantic error.
> 
> I don't see why. It could be changed to be a shorthand for:
> 
> void auto str = "hello";

This is inconsistent. "void" is a type, not a storage class, so 'void 
str = "hello"', the void will be parsed as a type, which the semantic 
pass will have to rewrite as type inference. Other storage classes allow 
type inference without any type being given.