Re: Let's discuss enums!

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: > Levi Morrison wrote on 18/09/2015 18:04: >> >> Anything else is trying to add value in some way – in your case you >> are adding a primitive value that the language will automatically map >> for you. I'm not saying that is a bad thing but I hope you can at >> least recognize that it is an addition and not the bare minimum. The >> RFC I am planning on proposing will have only the bare minimum because >> it's the least controversial part and is the most useful. The other >> stuff we can debate about later. > > > That's why I was kind of surprised to see ordinal() in there in the draft - > it's an additional field on each member, which in many cases has no > relationship to the value being represented. I suspect it will be removed before hitting the official discussion phase :D > Also, apologies for accidentally starting the discussion of your draft "too > early", I wasn't aware that you were working on it. I was trying to offer > something productive to the language, since I've been spending a lot of time > talking down new features lately. :) No worries – it happens.