Manifest constants using 'manifest' keyword?

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

	Well, *I* like the new one much better than reusing "enum" (which
appears to be a consensus in this thread so far). Even if we think
"manifest" is still not perfect, this is something I can live with
(and there will *always* be someone complaining that any given
keyword isn't the "best" choice, so as long as there isn't anything
actively wrong with it, we might as well keep it).

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeberger at free.fr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHbORhd0kWM4JG3k8RAt2ZAJ0eV+vJThoMLp5AvPPQwsGqUcru0wCfaP0u
e5jKvWFJkPrOzLVoX6h+9zk=
=exCP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----