3 ms·

Quite right. The entire possible space for enums to explore was exhausted in the age of 1960s assembler. There is only so much you can do with a number generato

by 9rx 2y ago

Quite right. The entire possible space for enums to explore was exhausted in the age of 1960s assembler. There is only so much you can do with a number generator. Which, I guess, is why we have this desperate attempt to redefine what an enum is, having become bored with a term that has no invitation potential. But, unfortunately, we have not found shared consensus on what "enum" should become. Some think it should be a constraint, others think it should be a discriminated union, others think a type declaration, so on and so forth. All of which already have names, which makes the whole thing particularly bizarre. You'd think if someone really feels the need to make their mark on the world by coining "enum" under new usage in the popular lexicon they would at least pick a concept that isn't already otherwise named.

pjmlp 2y ago
I think some people need to spend some time learning type systems theory.
- 9rx 2y ago
  That is probably true, but has little to do with enums, which are concerned with mentioning things one-by-one (i.e. producing values). It is true that some type system features built upon enums. Like a previous commenter mentioned, Pascal offers a type that constrains allowable values of that type to be within the values generated by the enumerator. Likewise, I mentioned in another discussion that in CrabLang the enumerator value is used as the discriminant in its discriminated union types, which achieves a similar effect. I expect that confuses some people into thinking types and enums are the same thing, which may be what you are trying to get at, although doesn't really apply here. The difference is known to those reading this discussion. The biggest problem with this desperate attempt to find new meaning for "enum" is: What are we going to call what has traditionally been known as an enum? It does not seem to have another word to describe it.

by 9rx 2y ago

pjmlp 2y ago

I think some people need to spend some time learning type systems theory.

9rx 2y ago
That is probably true, but has little to do with enums, which are concerned with mentioning things one-by-one (i.e. producing values). It is true that some type system features built upon enums. Like a previous commenter mentioned, Pascal offers a type that constrains allowable values of that type to be within the values generated by the enumerator. Likewise, I mentioned in another discussion that in CrabLang the enumerator value is used as the discriminant in its discriminated union types, which achieves a similar effect. I expect that confuses some people into thinking types and enums are the same thing, which may be what you are trying to get at, although doesn't really apply here. The difference is known to those reading this discussion. The biggest problem with this desperate attempt to find new meaning for "enum" is: What are we going to call what has traditionally been known as an enum? It does not seem to have another word to describe it.