Let's try SIP

Just coming back to this - why would the enum case name not be appropriate? just because its inconvenient to be lower case? ( i.e. why would the selector be different than the case name?)

Yes, you may end up making it snake_case or kebab-case with backticks just because in other contexts someone use it like this. And backticks are not very convenient to use, but thats not all.

I was grown in a paradigm where you shouldn't use a class name, because this may break compatibility when any class name change and developers may change names just because they want to.

Or it maybe not just basic type, the discriminator can be enum itself or something else with provided typeclass instance for it.

Would be great to have a way to get those values compile time in macro. Currently it is not possible - you need an instance to get those.

enumFoo(valdiscriminator:String):caseBar()extendsFoo("bar")caseBaz()extendsFoo("baz")

Maybe it is not a big problem, but one day I thought it could be useful.

How about using singleton type parameters as a workaround in this case? E.g.

enumFoo[D<:String&Singleton]:caseBar()extendsFoo["bar"]caseBaz()extendsFoo["baz"]inlinedefdiscriminator:D= compiletime.constValue[D]objectFoo:inlinedefcaseDiscriminator[F<:Foo[?]]:String=inline compiletime.erasedValue[F]matchcase_:Foo[d]=> compiletime.constValue[d]@maindefrun()=  println(Foo.Bar().discriminator)  println(Foo.caseDiscriminator[Foo.Bar])

Unfortunately I didn't manage to make this work with type members, which would save us from writing things likeFoo[?]

It brings complexity to users, I wouldn't use it myself