DIPX: Enum Literals / Implicit Selector Expression

[Mike Parker]

On Thursday, 30 June 2022 at 11:40:31 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

> It's like
>
> ```int myInt = int(42);```
>
>
> Why do i need to be repetitive here?

You don't. I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Integer 
literals don't have namespaces. Named enums do.

>
> Also the goal is not to remove the ability to do 
> ```Color.orange``` it is to leverage the type system to avoid 
> having to be repetitive when it is not needed, like in the 
> flags example
>
>
> ```MyFlags flags = .A | .B | .C | .D | .E | .F;```

Yes, I understand the goal.

I'd rather see an enhancement to `with` that would allow it in 
declarations. Just off the top of my head, something like:

```d
with(.MyFlags) flags = A | B | C;
```

That would not create a scope, and it would have to be usable in 
module-scope initializers. `with` already means "prefix this type 
to fields that fit". Here it just goes one step further and 
allows for the type of the declaration to be inferred.