[fluoridation]

Sure, but reflection requires some support from the compiler either way. There's no reason why if you have an expression like x.str, where the compiler can see that x is an enum, that it can't rewrite it into a table lookup like __Enum_strings[x]. This would work even if x is an unknown run-time value. This is basically what any other language that supports converting enums to strings natively does. I understand that the C++ committee prefers to delegate work to the standard library, but in this case it's stupid. Reflection needs support from the compiler. Just add new syntax and put it on the compiler, ffs!

[meindnoch]

So your gripe is that you have to write `enum_to_string(x)` instead of `x.str()`? And this is of such importance, that this needs to be included in the C++ language itself, as a special case of the dot operator. Correct?

>Reflection needs support from the compiler. Just add new syntax and put it on the compiler, ffs!

Converting enums to strings is one use case for reflection. Do you suggest introducing bespoke syntax for the other use cases too?

[fluoridation]

>So your gripe is that you have to write `enum_to_string(x)` instead of `x.str()`? And this is of such importance, that this needs to be included in the C++ language itself, as a special case of the dot operator. Correct?

My gripe, if you will, is that converting an enum value to a string is a basic feature (as in, not reducible to other features) of every language that supports doing that. Not everything should be part compiler part library. And it doesn't need to be bespoke syntax. Enum values are already objects from the point of view of the compiler. Just give them a str member. This is similar to how in Rust built-in integers also have members. It's not bespoke, it's using already-existing syntax for objects and extrapolating it to other types. Another alternative that wouldn't involve bespoke syntax would be giving enum values an operator const char *() overload, either explicit or implicit.

>Converting enums to strings is one use case for reflection. Do you suggest introducing bespoke syntax for the other use cases too?

The other cases are pretty much all variations of enumerating members of a class. I have no problem with those examples, since it's basically how it's done everywhere. You get a meta object for the type that a function that enumerates the members of the type, and you go through it.

[meindnoch]

So your problem is that C++ prefers free functions instead of these pseudo-members?

Because other than the free function vs member access thing, I don't see why it would concern the user of `enum_to_string()` that it's a proper function instead of a keyword like `static_assert`...