Implicit enum conversions are a stupid PITA

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 03/24/2010 08:28 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Regan Heath:
>> I find being able to define bit flag values with an enum and
>> combine them using | and |= or negate with&= ~flag etc very
>> useful.
>
> The cause of the problem here is that you are trying to use enums for
> a different purpose, as composable flags. In C# enums and flags are
> not the same thing, you can use the [Flags] attribute:
> http://www.codeguru.com/vb/sample_chapter/article.php/c12963 The
> ridiculous thing of D development is that no one ever takes a look at
> C#, it often already contains a solution to problems we are just
> starting to find in D (or often that we just refuse to see in D).

There are many good things in many languages to look at. C# has its 
pluses and minuses, but is definitely not the be-all, end-all of PLs. In 
particular, economy of means does not seem to be one of C#'s strengths.

> As
> they say: "Those who cannot learn from C# are doomed to re-invent it,
> often badly."

Who are "they"?

> (In D you can solve this problem creating a flags struct, using a
> strategy similar to the one used by std.bitmanip.bitfields, but it
> feels hackish).

Why does a mechanism that allows creating bitfields, custom enums, 
flags, custom-base literals, and more, feel hackish, whereas dumping a 
wheelbarrow of narrow-usefulness features with every release while still 
failing to address major problems (concurrency, immutability) feels not?


Andrei