Can we have this Syntactic sugar.

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:heh1v5$1tek$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> Come to think of it though, I think my favorite is still making the 
> "Foo.Option." optional wherever a Foo.Option is expected. But, I'd 
> consider anything (except the Haxe-style approach of polluting the 
> namespace with all of the unqualified enum values - I *hate* when 
> languages do that) to be a very welcome improvement.
>

Shoot, just realized that wouldn't help in this case since bit-or-ing enums 
results in the base type. It'd be nice to have a better way to handle that 
sort of thing.