This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
This was provided to the orginator's satisfaction via the VALUELISTFROM attribute
Just Wondering: if named const are part of a struct, how will the memory layout look like? Will the const members just be removed?
This would be useful for the reasons described, but it will also be a little bit tricky to implement if we don't design it right
I once asked why consts cannot be member of struct and got the answer that consts are replaced at compiletime (similar to preprocessor variables) and therefore reside in completely different memory than structs (correct me if i remember something wrong).
My approach was to have consts separated from variables, but grouped in a struct (mainly to allow a better, structured naming "sex_c.male").
Your approach - having consts and vars mixed - goes even further!
Beside that i like the idea much!