enum

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:18:23 w0rp wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 11:39:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:08:46 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> 1. Is the current design damaging enough (= allows enough
> >> wrong/buggy
> >> code to pass through) to warrant a breaking tightening?
> > 
> > What I would very much like to see happen is that any time that
> > any operation
> > is done on a variable of an enum type and that operation is not
> > _guaranteed_
> > to result in a valid enum value, the result should be the
> > enum's base type and
> > and not the enum type - e.g. or-ing enum flags together isn't
> > going to result
> > in a valid enum and shouldn't be typed as such, but
> > unfortunately, it
> > currently _is_ typed as such.
> > 
> > And I expect that the vast majority of cases where such a
> > change would break
> > code would catch bugs.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> I think this is a good idea. That way I think you'd only be able
> to get undefined enum values by casting.

Exactly.

- Jonathan M Davis