strong enums: why implicit conversion to basetype?

[Manfred Nowak]

Trass3r wrote:

> It's ill-defined. There are 4 possible types of typedef:  
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467
[...]
> Again, this thread is all about discussing the right way to do it
> and not  about what the buggy and holey spec reads.
[...]
> I don't see any merit in that.

You meight be blind. The only way to eject this possibility is to prove 
that there cannot be any merit.

Currently a good approximation of your intentions for the replacment of 
`enum's seems to be a wood of rooted almost-DAGs on types, where the 
edges in the DAGs represent the allowed implicit conversions, the inner 
nodes are represented by tags and the leaves are represented by 
members. Maybe that the "almost" is not necessary.

-manfred