• Chris Nicholson-Sauls (52/52) Jul 20 2006 I recently found myself writing the following code:
• xs0 (5/11) Jul 21 2006 Actually, there's no need for that with(). If the switch value of of a
• Deewiant (4/9) Jul 22 2006 I asked for this myself a while back:

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

I recently found myself writing the following code:

























It would have been nice to be able to write this as:

























Walter: how difficult would it be to allow named Enum types as valid
With-statement 
parameters?  When named Enums are used in tandem with constructs such as
Switch, this 
could save quite a lot of typing, and is still perfectly clear when reading
code.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

xs0 <xs0 xs0.com> writes:

 Walter: how difficult would it be to allow named Enum types as valid 
 With-statement parameters?  When named Enums are used in tandem with 
 constructs such as Switch, this could save quite a lot of typing, and is 
 still perfectly clear when reading code.
 
 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Actually, there's no need for that with(). If the switch value of of a 
named enum type, the corresponding constants could automatically become 
available for cases. It could be even better, if no other value was 
allowed (except default), as it's almost by definition a mistake?


xs0

Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
 Walter: how difficult would it be to allow named Enum types as valid
 With-statement parameters?  When named Enums are used in tandem with
 constructs such as Switch, this could save quite a lot of typing, and is
 still perfectly clear when reading code.
 

I asked for this myself a while back:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/37925.html

It would indeed be a handy feature.