Contradictory justification for status quo

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

Here is something I've noticed going on various time, recently in 
the memory management threads, but as to avoid an already heated 
debate, I'll use enum types as an example.

We have a problem with the way enums are defined. If you have :

enum E { A, B, C }
E e;

We have (1)
final switch(e) with(E) {
     case A:
         // ...
     case B:
         // ...
     case C:
         // ...
}

But also have (2):
typeof(E.A | E.B) == E

When raising this, the discussion goes as follow
  - "If you have (1), we can't have (2), as break guarantee (1) 
rely on."
  - "(2) is usefull. For instance UserID or Color"
  - "Then let's get rid of (1)"
  - "(1) is useful, for instance to achieve X or Y"
  - "Let's create a new type in the language, (1) would be enum 
and (2) would be this new type"
  - "It adds too much complexity in the language"

This very conversation went on in a very lengthy thread a while 
ago (note, for SDC, I just dropped (2), typeof(E.A | E.B) == int 
and I consider it a closed issue).

It can go forever, as all reason given for every concern raised 
is valid. Yes, adding a new type is probably too much for the 
benefit, yes (1) and (2) are useful in various scenarios. And, by 
refusing to take a step back look at the problem as a whole, we 
can turn around forever and never conclude anything, benefiting 
only the status quo.

I've seen this attitude going on on various topics. This is the 
surest and fastest way to end up with C++ without the C source 
compatibility. I'd like that we just stop this attitude.