Enum literals, good? bad? what do you think?

[russhy]

On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 16:12:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:50:49PM +0000, russhy via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Hello
>> 
>> I all the time wondered why we always have to be so much 
>> verbose with enum, when it's not casting to primitives, it is 
>> about repeating their long type name, constantly, all the time
> [...]
>
> OT1H, having to qualify enums by their full name is good, it 
> helps to avoid the mess in C where libraries sometimes define 
> conflicting values under the same name, e.g.,
>
> 	// somelib.h
> 	#define ERROR 0
> 	#define OK 1
>
> 	// someotherlib.h
> 	#define ERROR -1
> 	#define OK 0
>
> In D, if you used an enum, you'd have to quality which ERROR or 
> OK you're referring to, which avoids conflicts and also avoids 
> unexpected symbol hijacking. E.g., somelib.h used to define 
> MY_OK = 1, but after upgrading they renamed MY_OK to OK, now 
> your code that referred to OK in someotherlib.h may 
> accidentally get the wrong value.
>
> OTOH, I agree that sometimes D enums become rather verbose. 
> Especially in switch statements where you have to repeat their 
> name for every case. Fortunately, this is where D's `with` 
> statement comes in helpful:
>
> 	enum MyEnum { blah, bleh, bluh }
> 	MyEnum val = ...;
> 	final switch (val) {
> 		case MyEnum.blah: ...
> 		case MyEnum.bleh: ...
> 		case MyEnum.bluh: ...
> 	}
>
> can be replaced with:
>
> 	enum MyEnum { blah, bleh, bluh }
> 	MyEnum val = ...;
> 	final switch (val) with (MyEnum) {
> 		case blah: ...	// look ma! less repetition!
> 		case bleh: ...
> 		case bluh: ...
> 	}
>
>
> T

That's a good point, and that ``switch with`` is very nice and 
solve the issue

I didn't know about  ``with`` until adam mentioned it, could the 
rule in ``switch`` be relaxed and implement something akin to 
``with`` ?