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