On 6/11/11 8:49 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:32:56 -0400, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at>
wrote:
On 6/11/11 11:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
1. Programmers following this idiom (including the Phobos devs) end up
creating enums with yes and no values and are effectively identical
to other
enums except for their names. So, we end up with a fair bit of
boilerplate
code just to pass a strict boolean value.
s/fair/tiny/, imho:
---
/// ditto.
enum SomeFlag { enable, disable }
---
A big problem with this (and enums in general), what if your flag
function is defined inside a struct or class?
struct MyStruct
{
/// This function ROCKS!
void someKickAssFunction(MoreBitchin moreBitchin) {}
/// ditto
enum MoreBitchin { yes, no }
}
// the call, not so much.
s.someKickAssFunction(MyStruct.MoreBitchin.yes);
In other words, in order for your doc trick to work, member functions
have to require an additional namespace to the enum.
IMO, however, we need a better way to access the enum values without
specifying the entire namespace. The difficult part is to do it in a way
which doesn't conflict with normal symbols.
Of course, such an improvement would pull the rug from this Flag
proposal...
-Steve
Thanks, Steve, this is an excellent point - as are all you made in this
discussion (pro and con)!
Andrei
