Hmm - about manifest/enum

[Mike]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:09:25 +0100, Christopher Wright  
<dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's a hard thing to define. Perhaps it's just something that's specific  
> to each class, so you need to give programmers tools to define what  
> const means for their code. Maybe not.

That's what I meant. Maybe there is not one single solution that works,  
only a bad compromise which noone really finds useful, so it could be  
beneficial to look at a completely different way of addressing the  
underlying problems.

> This is why we're using enum now for things that are compile-time  
> constants. You would blanch at using enum to indicate a runtime computed  
> value that you can't modify with this reference.

In the end I don't care. As I don't work in a team I don't need to protect  
anything, only manifest const is interesting. But I want to see it solved  
and Walter free to carry on. For months now everything just seems to  
revolve around constness and nothing else.

> I'd really love to see property syntax. And attributes, too. I would  
> like an NHibernate equivalent for D, but I'd be stuck with ugly XML  
> configuration, and I don't think that's a manageable solution.

Since I've done come C# lately and every time I use C# I think that this  
is a really nice solution (the one thing that's better in C# than in D  
imho).

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/