PhobosWatch: manifest => enum

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

John Reimer wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 
>>> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>>> :(
>>> Yeah, I figure I'll get fricasseed over that one.
>> 
>> And rightfully so. This is one of the worse decisions among the bad ones
>> in the D history.
>> 
>>> argument is that we already have 3 ways to declare a constant, adding a
>>> fourth gets very difficult to justify. As opposed to a minor extension
>>> to enums.
>> 
>> Not good enough.
>> 
> 
> It'll do.  I'd say it's bad, but not that bad (I think "manifest" looked
> better, personally -- almost pays to go back in time and start adopting
> the ideas that worked several decades ago... if they indeed did work).
> 
> Like everything in D, it's one of:
> 
> (1) we eventually get used to it
> (2) it eventually gets rejected and deprecated by the designer(s)
> (3) or d gets abandoned. :-P

Considering that none of the "established" bad decisions from 1.0 seems to
be fixed (yet) in 2.0, we are currently gaining in the bad end? Even if
there is a lot of nice stuff in there too.

FWIW, I think enum is on the same level as foreach_reverse, although that
one exposed the problem with keywording such a special case. The usecase
implemented with enum is at least valid enough.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango