More Intuitive Syntax for Manifest (enum) Constants

[Peter C]

On Tuesday, 25 November 2025 at 10:54:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
>
> ...
> And honestly, if I were to create a new version of D with all 
> of the various changes that I think would ideally be changed if 
> we didn't care about backwards compatibility, I'd probably just 
> leave manifest constants the way that they are. It simply isn't 
> worth adding a keyword for this concept, and it has the benefit 
> that both enum values and manifest constants which are 
> designated via enum behave the same way. So, arguably, using a 
> different keyword would just fix one perceieved inconsistency 
> by adding a new name for what is practically speaking the same 
> thing but in a slightly different form.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

After exploring D's enum further, I tend to agree.

I like (and just discovered) that D's enum can be initialized by 
a CTFE-compatible function (pure).

C# lacks this initialization flexibility, and is too rigid, 
forcing you to switch from const to static readonly for 
initialization via a function.

So at least D's use of enum provides a consistent entry point for 
manifest constants - even in Rust you would have to switch from 
const to const fn.

Walter said (in previous post here): "The `enum E = 24;` syntax 
looked a bit odd at first, but seems perfectly natural to me 
now.".

So really, I just had the same reaction.

But I'm getting more comfortable with it, as begin to understand 
its role in D a little better (particulary in combination with 
CTFE).

But to clear [yet again] I was never advocating for a change to D 
- I was just expressing an opinion.