Bug 8816 – It should be illegal for enums to declare members named init, max, or min

TDPL (p.275) specifically allows for enums to declare members named min, max, and init and then immediately tells you that it's a dumb idea to do so. Allowing it is bound to break generic code, since it allows you to do nonsense like enum MyEnum : int {max, min, init} completely breaking any guarantees about what the mean. And note this fun situation: enum MyEnum : int { a, b, c, init } void main() { MyEnum e; assert(e == MyEnum.a); assert(MyEnum.init == MyEnum.a); } The first assertion passes and the second fails, meaning that the declartion of init has effectively hidden the real init. I'd strongly argue that allowing the overloading init, min, and max should be disallowed. Allowing it gains us nothing and just causes bugs.

See also issue# 8817.

For what it's worth, I agree that it's nonsensical to even allow this. It's just inviting catastrophe.

Should be a nice thing for a bootcamper to work on.

Cannot reproduce on DMD64 D Compiler v2.074.0-devel-4ee9f51 Ubuntu 16.04 64-bit. For all test cases (min/max/init) the compiler outputs "Cannot modify manifest constant $constants".