Whould enums be marked (optionally) with implements as struct does?

[jorgeluismireles]

Is a fact enum Fruit can implement interface Color as struct Thing does, though enum can't be marked with implements.

V 0.4.8 aa3ab3f

interface Color {
	color() string
}

struct Things implements Color { // implements optional and works
	name   string
	colors ?string 
}

fn (t Things) color() string { 
	return '${t.name} are ' + t.colors or { 'invisible' }
}

enum Fruits { // implements can't be use in enums???
	apple
	banana
	orange
}

fn (e Fruits) color() string {
	match e {
		.apple { return 'apples are green, yellow or red' }
		.banana { return 'bananas are yellow' }
		.orange { return 'oranges are orange' }
	}
}

fn main() {
	mut cc := []Color{}
	cc << Things{'bears', 'black, brown or white'}
	cc << Things{'unicorns', none}
	cc << Fruits.apple
	cc << Fruits.banana
	for c in cc {
		println(c.color())
	}
}

bears are black, brown or white
unicorns are invisible
apples are green, yellow or red
bananas are yellow

[medvednikov]

Interesting idea

[spytheman]

Imho all types should be able to support an explicit implements .
It will help tooling.

[jorgeluismireles]

For enums, we'll need also something like:

enum Enum implements Interface as u8 {

}

or

enum Enum as u8 implements Interface {

}

For large projects, explicity is very welcome.

[Wajinn]

Just adding another perspective. Like "implements", but hope it stays optional. Would not like it as much, if required.