Flag proposal

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:it32kq$2gfq$2 at digitalmars.com...
> On 6/12/11 1:59 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
>> news:it1cvf$21d4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> It's the namespace pollution and the non-self-containedness of the
>>> function that's most troublesome. Also see Steve's point about methods.
>>> It's just untenable - to use the idiom with a class/struct method, you
>>> need to go all the way _outside_ of it an plant a symbol there.
>>>
>>
>> You can't put an enum in a class/struct?
>>
>>> What I find most interesting is that the lack of strong counterarguments
>>> has not stood in the way of a strong emotional response.
>>
>> Correction: Andrei's staunch dismissal of all counterarguments has not 
>> stood
>> in the way of a strong emotional response.
>>
>>> This mood has made it difficult for exchange of rational arguments. 
>>> Funny
>>> thing is, the change is tiny.
>>>
>>> "Here, I'll add a handful of yes/no enums here and there in the standard
>>> library, just to help some algorithms. More to come."
>>>
>>> "Yeah, sure, whatevs."
>>>
>>> "Here, there's a way to define them once so we don't need to define them
>>> everywhere."
>>>
>>
>> Correction: "Here, there's a way to solve a barely-existant problem by
>> botching up syntax (and error messages) for the user."
>>
>>> "Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
>>>
>
> I'm not sure, but I think I see a sarcasm in there.
>

I guess it could be taken that way, but it wasn't really my point to be 
sarcastic. My intent was just to summarize the way I see the situation.