Implicit enum conversions are a stupid PITA

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 03/25/2010 02:52 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
> news:hogdpf$2te7$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 03/25/2010 02:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>   wrote in message
>>> news:hogc1o$2pm8$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> On 03/25/2010 01:33 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>>>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I encourage you to code that up and see how it swims.<
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of using that syntax gives me nausea, I can't use that even
>>>>> if I implement that myself.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you're exaggerating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course he is. But using mixins to "solve" every need that comes up is
>>> a
>>> bit like saying "LISP does everything!" even though LISP gets that
>>> flexibity
>>> by imposing a butt-ugly syntax ("Lost In Stupid Parenthesis", anyone?) on
>>> pretty much everything.
>>
>> I'm not saying to use mixins to solve every need that comes up. I'm saying
>> it's worth trying them to solve a few obscure needs.
>>
>
> I can agree mixins are a perfectly fine interim solution for anything not
> already in the language, and for truly obscure needs (I use them all the
> time for both situations myself). But I'd still hardly consider flags and
> bitfields (to be clear, I'm talking about the abstract concept of a bitfield
> in general, not necessarily the C-style
> struct-with-sub-byte-member-alignment bitfield syntax/semantics) to be an
> "obscure" need in something that's supposed to be a systems language. I
> guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on that.

In what ways do you find the bitfield interface wanting?

Andrei