const again

[Ary Borenszweig]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> One thing that concerns me.  If we assume that "enum x = 3" is simply 
>>> shorthand for "enum { x = 3 }" then all such declarations would be 
>>> implicitly typed as integers, which doesn't sound like you want.  It 
>>> seems you're suggesting "enum" be treated more like a storage class 
>>> here?  I'm not sure if I like that idea.
>>
>> Why not
>>
>> macro x = 3;
> 
> Assuming that we need a new keyword, I like "macro" better.  We're going 
> to get it in 2.0 anyway, right?

That's the idea. ;-)

There a good use right there for that keyword.