On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:12:04 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 9/1/10 15:35 CDT, bearophile wrote:
so:
Another taste discussion?
Nope.
-----------------
Steven Schveighoffer:
And I think if you have an idea to try and "fix" it, you might as well
know now, it will never happen.<
There I was explaining something better to Daniel Gibson. The purpose
of the enhancement request 3999 has nothing to do with a request for a
different keyword.
-----------------
I think now I have presented my point as well as I can, and people have
given comments and opinions. I'd like to Walter or/and Andrei to
express their opinion about the bug 3999 :-)
I think it's a good enhancement. C++'s good old enum has been
instrumental in finding a few bugs and clarifying a few interfaces in a
project at work. Based on that experience I'd say that there's a chance
more restrictive is better. We need to find a principled way to define
semantics though - if we disable comparison it really means we're
disabling implicit conversion.
Does this mean no more defining bits as enums?
enum myBits
{
flag1 = 1;
flag2 = 2;
flag3 = 4;
}
void fn(int flags);
fn(myBits.flag1 | myBits.flag2);
That was the one case where I really like the implicit conversion.
-Steve
