Discussion Thread: DIP 1044--Enum Type Inference--Community Review Round 1

[claptrap]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 09:37:43 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 05:55:04 UTC, rikki cattermole 
> wrote:
>> On 22/11/2022 6:47 PM, IchorDev wrote:
>>> For instance, if everyone voted for "no syntax" then the poll 
>>> would be useless to me.
>>
>> But it would tell you something useful.
>>
>> It would suggest a lot of people are wanting to explore 
>> semantic behavior instead. Such as Walter's alternative 
>> proposal idea.
>
> If it's not implemented with .identifier then I will oppose it.
>
> I don't buy the "it will break code" point of view either.
>
> The only thing I can think of that will break is that 
> .identifier already has a meaning today that means module scope.
>
> But that could easily mean module AND "static/scoped" lookup 
> and any ambiguity can be fixed by prioritization.
>
> 1. module scope 2. enum 3. static members of ex. classes
>
> So if you type .a then it will first look in module scope, then 
> in enums that are in scope and at last within classes that are 
> in scope.

Why not an error if it's ambiguous? There are ways to specify 
which you want if needed. And its probably unlikely enough that 
occasionally having to specify the enum name is not anything to 
be concerned about.