Discussion Thread: DIP 1044--Enum Type Inference--Community Review Round 1

[IGotD-]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 09:37:43 UTC, bauss wrote:
>
> If it's not implemented with .identifier then I will oppose it.
>
> I don't buy the "it will break code" point of view either.
>
> The only thing I can think of that will break is that 
> .identifier already has a meaning today that means module scope.
>
> But that could easily mean module AND "static/scoped" lookup 
> and any ambiguity can be fixed by prioritization.
>
> 1. module scope 2. enum 3. static members of ex. classes
>
> So if you type .a then it will first look in module scope, then 
> in enums that are in scope and at last within classes that are 
> in scope.
>
> I suggested something like it earlier too.
>
> Anything that is more complicated than .identifier is not worth 
> it and will only introduce unncessary complexity to the 
> language syntax.
>
> Example:
>
> ```d
> class A { static int a = 1; static int b = 2; }
> enum B { b = 3, c = 4 }
> int c = 5;
>
> void main() {
>   writeln(.a);
>   writeln(.b);
>   writeln(.c);
> }
> ```
>
> Prints:
>
> 1
> 3
> 5

I agree with this. In general the D project has become "don't 
break my beautiful parser/lexer" rather than what languages are 
supposed to do which is helping humans create/read code.

Another thing is that globals are in general sparse so that there 
will likely not be an ambiguity between enums and globals. There 
is a higher likely hood that there will be a ambiguity between 
locals/members and enums with the syntax without the '.'.

The . syntax is used in several other languages which helps and 
also it also helps the programmer understanding that it is an 
enum and not variable of any kind.