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

[sighoya]

On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 15:40:50 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 14:43:15 UTC, Paul wrote:
>> If I wanted to make this into a serious language suggestion, 
>> how should I?
>> Does this require a DIP, or does it make sense to first start 
>> a discussion post solely about this topic? Am I even being 
>> realistic here, I have no idea ":\
>
> A DIP would be required before this feature could be officially 
> added to the language, but generally it makes sense to discuss 
> the idea with the community before writing a DIP. In this case, 
> 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.

I often found myself limited to leverage recursion unnecessarily 
only because I want to reshadow an enum or static variable.
Why isn't that possible, it hasn't to be mutation at all, only 
rebinding.