No we should not support enum types derived from strings

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 15:19:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 5/11/21 10:34 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 13:56:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> Then enum strings are not ranges, correct?
>> 
>> They are not. But they are strings. Which imply that string 
>> aren't ranges, which is right, `ref strings` are ranges, not 
>> strings.
>
> `ref string` is not a type.

This is just denial.

There are many exemple of conversions that differs with string 
and ref strings which do not involve enums. For instance, 
immutable(string) -> string is a valid conversion, but 
immutable(string) -> ref string isn't.

Call it something else than a type if you want, nevertheless, 
conversions rules are simply different, even if you abstract the 
notion of rvalue/lvalue from the whole thing, so it is clearly 
more than just a regular storage class.

When you say ref, you say "I do not want a subtype". Saying B 
isn't a subtype of A because I can't pass a B to what expects a 
ref A is just fallacious.