On 6 September 2025 01:47:35 BST, Rob Landers wrote:
>
>Interesting... but we don’t really have a way to say that a parameter or
>return value must satisfy *any* constraints except that it be of a certain
>type. Hmmm, I guess we have "true" and "false" as values that can be
>returned/accepted b
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025, at 22:01, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
> On 4 September 2025 15:50:08 BST, Rob Landers wrote:
> >I think this is a fair observation and a fair question; but I think it is
> >important not to have "magic". The power-of-two rule is to make it possible
> >to work back how $en
On 4 September 2025 15:50:08 BST, Rob Landers wrote:
>I think this is a fair observation and a fair question; but I think it is
>important not to have "magic". The power-of-two rule is to make it possible to
>work back how $enum->value === 15 (0x) even if you are completely new to
>the lang
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 7:20 PM, Morgan wrote:
> On 2025-09-04 09:23, Marc B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Attempting to use a backed value that is not a power-of-two would result in
>>> a compilation error. Bitwise operations are performed as though they’re
>>> performed on a regular integer.
>>>
>>> What do
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025, at 15:56, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 7:20 PM, Morgan wrote:
> > On 2025-09-04 09:23, Marc B. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Attempting to use a backed value that is not a power-of-two would result
> >>> in a compilation error. Bitwise operations are performed as thoug
On 2025-09-04 09:23, Marc B. wrote:
Attempting to use a backed value that is not a power-of-two would result in a
compilation error. Bitwise operations are performed as though they’re performed
on a regular integer.
What do you think?
I think what we actually would need is an EnumSet which
Hi Rob,
Am 3. September 2025 22:44:58 MESZ schrieb Rob Landers :
>Hello internals,
>
>I would like to propose a new type of backed enum: flag. This is an
>integer-backed enum that requires power-of-two values that can be combined
>with the bitwise operators to be used as flags.
>
>In some core f
