DIPX: Enum Literals / Implicit Selector Expression

[ryuukk_]

On Thursday, 30 June 2022 at 17:15:46 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 June 2022 at 11:32:42 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>
>> ```
>> set_my_flag( MySuperLongName.MyFlagA |  
>> MySuperLongName.MyFlagB | MySuperLongName.MyFlagC | 
>> MySuperLongName.MyFlagD | MySuperLongName.MyFlagE | 
>> MySuperLongName.MyFlagF );
>> ```
>>
>> vs
>>
>> ```
>> set_my_flag( .MyFlagA |  .MyFlagB | .MyFlagC | .MyFlagD | 
>> .MyFlagE | .MyFlagF );
>> ```
>>
>> One could argue to use ``with``
>>
>> But what about places where it can't be used? and it is 
>> counter productive, if the goal is to remove repetition, why 
>> introduce more?
>
> Where do you want to use it where it cannot be used?
>
> This works today:
>
> ```
>     with(Color)
>     final switch(color) {
>         case red: writeln("red"); break;
>     	case orange: writeln("orange");
>     }
> ```
>
>
> ```
>     with(MySuperLongName) set_my_flag( MyFlagA |  MyFlagB | 
> MyFlagC | MyFlagD | MyFlagE | MyFlagF);
> ```
> More clear at the cost of a few more characters to type. Quite 
> acceptable compromise in my view.

Now it is harder to see the function, 'with' is nice when you 
need to pull in a symbol into a scope

It is not nice when you just want to call a function with your 
enum

Other languages who have it didn't go with a 'with' for a reason, 
it adds unecessary noise


You don't do:

     with(int) set_my_int(5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 +10);

It kills the intent to make things simpler and logical, functions 
expect Enum, we give its value

Function expect int? we give a value