Seeing this argumentation is so tiresome, because it feels like there is a lack of self-awareness regarding what is "familiar" and what isn't, which is subconsciously translated to "ugly" and "bad".
In a lot of languages, you achieve the same with 1 line of code. It's not about familiarity, it's about the fact that it's a long and convoluted incantation to get the name of an enum.
Why do I have to be familiar with all those weird symbols just to do a trivial thing ?
Update:
Zig:
const Color = enum { red, green, blue };
const name = @tagName(Color.red); // "red"
Rust:
#[derive(Display)]
enum Color { Red, Green, Blue }
let name = Color::Red.to_string(); // "Red"
Clojure:
(name :red) => "red"
enum Color { red, green, blue };
auto name = to_enum_string(Color::Red); // "Red"You won't have to care about ^^ and [:X:] if you just want to consume reflection-based utils, which was the whole point of my comment.
> Why do I have to be familiar with all those weird symbols just to do a trivial thing ?
And my answer demonstrates that you do not have to.
Then again - "where does that `to_enum_string` come from exactly?".
How many libraries do you read the source code after installing them with the package manager?
First of all, the only correct way to use package managers is with validated internal repos, don't vibe install, that goes for node, and goes for C++ as well.
Second this thread was all about how code lands in one's computer.
Can you quote the C++ standard section that specifically talks about the `to_enum_string` function?
It is on the same place as left pad on ECMA 262.
#include "to_enum_string.h"
As far as I understand you would have to mess with individual parser tokens in Rust instead of high-level structures like "enum" (C++ reflection). It would be much, much uglier to implement anything like "to_enum_string" in Rust as you would have to re-implement parts of the compiler to get the "enum" concept out of a list of tokens.