Compile time values & implicit conditional mixin, as an alternative to tertiary operator hell and one-compile-time functions.

[Paul]

On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 15:40:50 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> I believe it is very unlikely that such a DIP would be accepted 
> because:
>
> 1. The problem it aims to solve can already be solved by 
> existing language features (CTFE).
> 2. It adds a new keyword to the language.

It does seem to me that, were 'switch' to be a new feature, these 
points would hold as well, but I'll take your word for it 😅. 
However I do think having a new/seperate keyword for a concept 
that's already abusing the 'static' keyword would make more sense.
(Especially for people that have not used C)