2016 02:36 PM
>> To: Ross O'Brien <mailto:narrativium+sw...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: swift-evolution <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
>> propertiesforeach case
>>
>> On 26.05.2016 19:50, Ross
ift-evolution@swift.org>
Sent: 26/05/2016 02:36 PM
To: Ross O'Brien <mailto:narrativium+sw...@gmail.com>
Cc: swift-evolution <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
propertiesforeach case
On 26.05.2016 19:50, Ross O'Bri
m+sw...@gmail.com>
Cc: "swift-evolution" <swift-evolution@swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
propertiesforeach case
On 26.05.2016 19:50, Ross O'Brien wrote:
> Perhaps there's an argument to be made for a sort of 'enumDictionary' type
>
gt;
Cc: "swift-evolution" <swift-evolution@swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
propertiesforeach case
The argument against giving away raw value is that it grants
uniqueness of cases when serialized. One can reliably do:
// serialize
l
mpessoa.com>; swift-evolution@swift.org
> <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
> propertiesforeach case
>
> Yes, I don’t think it would work with a raw value behaviour. You want it to
> compile down to
t;Leonardo Pessoa" <m...@lmpessoa.com>; "swift-evolution@swift.org"
<swift-evolution@swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
propertiesforeach case
Yes, I don’t think it would work with a raw value behaviour. You want it to
compil
wift-evolution@swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Enums with static stored
propertiesforeach case
That would replace current enum raw value functionality and I see two
problems with that.
1. A lot of breaking changes
2. Raw values currently are unique values among al
