Flag proposal

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:isuivh$1a6v$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 6/10/11 8:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2011-06-10 18:57:20 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>
>>> On 6/10/11 5:25 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>>> A hack is something that works even though it's ugly and generally 
>>>> cause
>>>> people to call for something better. I'm not opposed to using hacks as
>>>> long as they're well-encapsulated and not too fragile, but in this case
>>>> I find the encapsulation is leaky since you need to litter your code
>>>> with Flag!"" everywhere.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/andralex/phobos/commit/84c75336a4ef04b4c3b1924d7ac9329e744ab8e7
>>>
>>
>> It's
>>>
>> still a hack, but I'll agree it makes the encapsulation a little better
>> if you use yes!"abc" at the function call point.
>>
>> However, I still think it's a deterioration from the user's point of
>> view compared to the current situation with hand-crafted enums: it still
>> requires a string, and the documentation will say func(Flag!"abc" abc),
>> repeating the parameter's name unless you hand-craft a special Ddoc
>> version of the function declaration. It's better than Flag!"abc".yes,
>> but it's worse than Abc.yes.
>
> But the problem is the same today.
>
> enum Abc : bool { no, yes }
> void fun(Abc abc = Abc.no);
>
> No difference. In the function declaration, the word "abc" occurs three 
> times.
>

Which makes Flag even less of an improvement.