DIP1044---"Enum Type Inference"---Formal Assessment

[jmh530]

On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 04:54:43 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> I submitted DIP1044, "Enum Type Inference", to Walter and Atila 
> on April 1. I received the final decision from them on April 
> 18. They have decided not to accept this proposal.
>
> [snip]

I didn't follow this too closely last year, but I don't see a lot 
wrong with the "implicit with" approach (or at least I'm not sure 
how wrong it would be, I would lean toward adding it to a preview 
switch and see if it broke anything). The DIP proponents would 
argued against that approach seem to just be saying that the DIP 
is more powerful than that. Sure, that may be true, but this is 
also a situation where they probably shouldn't let perfect be the 
enemy of good. I'd rather "implicit with" than using strings and 
mixins to hack together the same effect for function argument 
lists.