PhobosWatch: manifest => enum

[John Reimer]

Walter Bright wrote:
>> But then, I'm not sure if you have set goals on how many keywords 
>> you're allowed to add per year.  If you have some sort of limit, I can 
>> see how you necessarily must show restraint. :)
> 
> As I remarked elsewhere, there is no language design problem that cannot 
> be resolved by adding more keywords. Just like with aircraft design, 
> there is no problem that cannot be fixed by adding more thrust <g>.
> 


LOL!  That's a good analogy... :)  Although, there's probably an equally 
astute analogy pointing out the the shortcomings of re-using keywords. 
;)  But I still like what you say here.


> D already has quite a lot of keywords. Trying to stem the flood if 
> possible is a reasonable goal.
> 


Agreed.


>> My question is: at what point do D keywords reach critical mass (in 
>> terms of keyword hijacking for new functionality)?  This seems to 
>> happen repeatedly as D struggles to avoid keyword additions... at what 
>> /appears/ to be the expense of the programmer.
> 
> As I suggested, all the enum enhancements do is remove restrictions 
> placed on its use. I don't see how that is costing the programmer.
> 


I guess that's to be found out.


>> This new manifest enum could work and eventually people might just get 
>> used to it... but it's so strange, so foreign, and so seemingly 
>> inconsistant that I think your betting heavily on the good-graces of 
>> your d community (who likely will forgive you and move on).
> 
> I think it'll seem strange for about 5 minutes, and then will seem 
> normal. After all, that's what happened with the !( ) syntax for 
> templates rather than < >.
> 


I hate to be a pushover on this one <g>, but I'll just accept this enum 
thing and hope for the best.


>> But I do wonder if this is the case for all those users that are still 
>> deciding whether to adopt D or not.  D 2.0 is an indicator of what is 
>> to come... so decisions made here are going to speak volumes about the 
>> future.
>>
>> I don't know how newcomers would react or what confusion it would 
>> cause novices, so I won't use that as argument against it.  But it's a 
>> gamble and a seemingly very risky gamble.  Some would say high-risk 
>> gambles don't make sense, especially when the payback is nominal. 
> 
> I would argue it is less confusing than introducing yet another keyword, 
> especially a keyword whose usage overlaps 3 other keywords, but only 
> time will tell.


I think this is the whole source of the disagreement.  A number of us 
were arguing that we think this is more confusing... but I think we'll 
survive.

-JJR