"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Come to think of it though, I think my favorite is still making the > "Foo.Option." optional wherever a Foo.Option is expected. But, I'd > consider anything (except the Haxe-style approach of polluting the > namespace with all of the unqualified enum values - I *hate* when > languages do that) to be a very welcome improvement. >
Shoot, just realized that wouldn't help in this case since bit-or-ing enums results in the base type. It'd be nice to have a better way to handle that sort of thing.
