On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 12:29:56 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 3/1/22 7:22 AM, meta wrote:
If the type is ``Color`` I think the compiler should allow
``GRAY`` if it is a member of ``Color``, isn't how strong
statically typed language should work? I wonder what is the
rational against it? How hard would it be to allow it?
The problem is how the original source works.
The only way to define a manifest constant for a struct
instance in C is to #define it.
So I'm sure that if raylib could put that inside the `Color`
type it would, but it can't.
What a D binding should do is exactly what Mike said -- provide
a complete binding as expected, and then add machine-generated
nicer APIs.
I actually have an open issue, in case anyone is interested in
working on it: https://github.com/schveiguy/raylib-d/issues/8
-Steve
Oh I was talking with regard to D's enum, not about the binding,
allowing it via D, would make interfacing with C code easier
enum Color
{ GRAY }
void setColor(Color color);
setColor(GRAY);
