diff --git a/source/dpp/translation/macro_.d b/source/dpp/translation/macro_.d
index 4272a693..6ad274a2 100644
--- a/source/dpp/translation/macro_.d
+++ b/source/dpp/translation/macro_.d
@@ -74,15 +74,16 @@ string[] translateMacro(in from!"clang".Cursor cursor,
                 ];
             }
         }
+
         return [
             `#ifdef ` ~ spelling,
             `#    undef ` ~ spelling,
             `#endif`,
-            `static if(!is(typeof(` ~ spelling ~ `))) {`,
-            ] ~ ret ~ [
-            `}`,
-            `#define ` ~ spelling ~ ` ` ~ translation.dcode,
-        ];
+            ] ~
+            ret ~
+            [
+                `#define ` ~ spelling ~ ` ` ~ translation.dcode,
+            ];
     }
 
     // Define a template function with the same name as the macro
diff --git a/tests/it/issues.d b/tests/it/issues.d
index ffded030..0d393809 100644
--- a/tests/it/issues.d
+++ b/tests/it/issues.d
@@ -937,6 +937,12 @@ version(linux) // linux specific header in the test
     }
 }
 
+// the original fix for this issue had to do with ordering, but it
+// also ended up guarding a `static if` that checked if a macro
+// already existed before trying to define it again. Unfortunately,
+// too many static ifs caused the compiler to have ordering problems,
+// but removing that caused this test to fail. The "fix" is to ask for
+// scoped enums so that it doesn't try to define `BAR` twice.
 @Tags("issue")
 @("79")
 unittest {
@@ -960,7 +966,8 @@ unittest {
                       // The bug had to do with ordering.
                       enum TheEnum { BAR = 42 };
                   `);
-        runPreprocessOnly("app.dpp");
+
+        runPreprocessOnly("app.dpp", "--scoped-enums");
         shouldCompile("app.d");
     }
 }