Manifest constants using 'manifest' keyword?
John Reimer
terminal.node at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 21:48:54 PST 2007
Bruce Adams wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:16:38 -0000, John Reimer
> <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> According to phobos changeset 535[1] I guess we have a new 'manifest'
>>> keyword to define manifest (to be redundant) constants. I really
>>> think he
>>> should went with alias or macro or with other better *existing* keyword,
>>> but is definitely better than enum.
>>> [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/changeset/535
>>>
>>
>> Ack! The masses succeeded in influencing Walter and Andrei... thus
>> proving me completely wrong! Oh no! :)
>>
>> That'll teach me about getting all philosophical. :P
>>
> Poor Walter though. He finally breaks under the strain and changes his
> proposal only to have
> yet another thread full of whinges (no offence intended) about the new one.
> I guess that's the lot of language designers.
Yep, the cycle continues. Actually, it's not completely unusual that
they acquiesce... it just doesn't happen that often (which is good, I
suppose). I think that this has just become the accepted design process
for D. It's really quite odd, but I suppose it just adds another flavor
of design and engineering trends to the history books.
I don't think it's really something to pity anymore, since it looks that
Walter has long since accepted this mechanism.
-JJR
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list