digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 10818] New: Allow parameterized enum declaration
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (32/32) Aug 13 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Aug 13 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Aug 16 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/19) Aug 16 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
Summary: Allow parameterized enum declaration
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
ReportedBy: k.hara.pg gmail.com
Aggregate declarations could have optional template parameters.
class C1 {}
class C2(T) {}
interface I1 {}
interface I2(T) {}
struct S1 {}
struct S2(T) {}
union U1 {}
union U2(T) {}
Similarly, parameterized enum declaration would increase language consistency.
enum E1 {}
enum E2(T) {}
enum E2(T) if (constraint) {}
enum E2(T) : T {}
enum E2(T) if (constraint) : T {}
enum E2(T) : T if (constraint) {}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 13 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |pull
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2474
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 13 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818
Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bugzilla digitalmars.com
20:48:24 PDT ---
Are there any existing use cases that this would improve?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 16 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10818Are there any existing use cases that this would improve?I don't have actual use case. I'm proposing this enhancement just for increasing language consistency. --- Now I'm opening a compiler PR to extend DIP42 feature. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2467 This is necessary to support `enum bool x(T) = initializer` syntax, and looks to me it is very similar to N3651 in C++14. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3651.pdf - aggregates, functions, and variable declarations. And, at that time enum declaration would be remained just one declaration which cannot be parameterized. That would be inconsistent. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 16 2013









d-bugmail puremagic.com 