Enum AA with classes not allowed anymore?

[bauss]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:40:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 17:05:19 Daniel Kozak via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> so you can try to use static immutable insted of enum
>
> Yeah. Similarly, you could just have a regular function that 
> you call at compile time that returns what you want (assuming 
> that it's not being assigned to an enum) - then if it's just 
> being used to generate something that you actually want to keep 
> around after compiling, you're not stuck with the AA continuing 
> to exist past compile time.
>
> I don't know that it will ever happen, but there has been talk 
> of disallowing enums of anything that will allocate, because 
> you pretty much never want that (since it will allocate every 
> time it's used), and it's easy to do accidentally.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Yeah I ended up making property functions that returns the AA's 
with what I want.

Ex.

@property string[string] myAA() {
     string[string] aa;

     // ... populate aa

     return aa;
}

Because then I didn't have to change any places it was used. 
Since it's compile-time it shouldn't matter too much that it 
might be called multiple times and generate a new AA. There seem 
to be no better way to cache it other than local variables where 
it's used.

I did have one enum AA I could change to a static AA since it 
wasn't called during compile-time, so I guess there were some 
advantages by not being able to compile with latest version; like 
I wouldn't have caught that mistake if I didn't come by this.