On Sunday, 25 November 2018 at 05:41:56 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 05:48:16PM +0000, Stanislav Blinov via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Yup. UDAs did get in there eventually, and version should too.
I think this would be a trivial DIP, by making it such that a
version block inside an enum would lower to the above code. Of
course, it could be taken further: the above trick doesn't
quite handle this case:
enum E {
a,
version(Windows) {
b, c
}
version(Posix) {
d
}
}
That is what Jonathan (and I concur) is talking about.
But this looks like such an antipattern that it probably should
be written differently anyway, or just generated via a string
mixin.
Why is it an antipattern? Having to version the whole enum just
because some stupid C API has two out of a hundred items
versioned per platform is an antipattern :)
Granted, it may require some special syntax, i.e.
enum E {
a,
b if version(Windows),
c if version(Windows),
d if version(Posix),
}
or something to that effect. But there has to be a better way
than just versioning the whole enum or resorting to clumsy mixins.
