Re: [RFC] Enumerations

> On Dec 9, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Benjamin Morel <benjamin.morel@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net > <mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote: > > 5. Someone else mentioned shortcut syntax, which I would like to mention again, although I > realize implement details might make this a non-starter. > > So if I have a function that accepts a Size from above, e.g.: > > function show(Size $size) {} > > Then it would be great if we could call the function like this since its parameter was > type-hinted: > > show(::Medium) > > Rather than always having to write: > > show(Size::Medium) > > So can we consider a shortcut syntax? > > I'm not sure what value a shortcut syntax would bring, but it would surely break, or at > least make ambiguous, union types: > > function show(Enum1|Enum2 $value) {} > show(::Medium) > > Which enum would Medium resolve to? Good question. What *could* happen is: 1. It could resolve to the Enum that has a ::Medium, 2. Or it could be disallowed for union type hints (probably the better option as adding a "Medium" to the other enum could inadvertently break code that calls it.) 3. This suggestion could just be tabled. Again, I am just asking if this is something we could consider because it would be nice to shorten line length in cases where expressions get really long. Maybe a different question could be if a "use" statement could empower making explicit shorthands/aliases? -Mike P.S. I completely understand if either of these things are out of scope for this RFC.