The Sweet With

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Christopher Wright" <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gp6p96$2dp9$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Sorry about the name...
>
> Tomasz Sowi&#324;ski wrote:
>> A blunt one would be screaming out an error whenever the compiler has 
>> trouble choosing an overload. Would it be too hard to live with?
>
> For programmers? It would be ugly.
>
> For the compiler? It would be ugly, and result in a lot of special-casing, 
> I feel. With current with statements, you start a new scope and add a 
> bunch of symbols to it. Using this proposed with statement syntax, you 
> don't create a new scope, so you have to add a step or three to resolving 
> symbols.
>
> Also, you'd have to find all possible overloads of a function and do some 
> semantic analysis on them before you could resolve the arguments. Overload 
> resolution becomes a lot more difficult.
>
> And what does the programmer gain? Very little. People seldom use enums, I 
> think.

I use enums all the time. But I don't mind prepending "MyEnumType." to enum 
literals. It would be nice to have a shortcut in clear-cut cases, but if it 
meant a bunch of special casing and such, I can certainly live without it.