On Tuesday, 8 April 2014 at 19:09:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
1. Is the current design damaging enough (= allows enough
wrong/buggy code to pass through) to warrant a breaking
tightening?
Enums in D *should* be tightened to be at least type-safe, but I
don't think it's a large issue.
2. To what extent can library-based approaches help?
You could consider it an embarrassment that we should need a
library solution to cover up for (arguably) bad design in the
language. Speaking pragmatically, though, it looks like library
solutions could possibly take us quite far.
3. What is the priority of improving enums in the larger
picture of other things we must do?
Enums could stand to be improved, but finishing the
implementation of the language should take precedent. Figuring
out scope (which Adam Ruppe had some good ideas for) and shared
is what instantly comes to mind... These are probably also the
two hardest tasks remaining. Then there's also making objects
default non-null, tuple syntax, qualified constructors...
