On 01/26/2012 08:17 PM, Simen Kjærås wrote:On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:49:40 +0100, Alvaro <alvarodotseg...@gmail.com> wrote:El 26/01/2012 14:59, Trass3r escribió:I thought it'd be good to outsource this question from the other threadabout enums as flags. Is there any merit in having implicit conversion to the basetype? Imo it only introduces a severe bug source and brings no advantages.A better example is something like if (b && Bla.S2) // written '&&' instead of '&' by mistake, will silently pass Heck even +,-,... work.I kind of agree. I understand enums as a way to define "tags" or flags used to define things like file open mode Read, Write, ReadWrite, endianness BigEndian, LittleEndian, socket type Stream/Packet, etc. things that under the hood are represented by integer numbers but that don't represent *quantities*, so should not work the same way as integers. What is the result of subtracting or multiplying LittleEndian and BigEndian? Does not make sense. Bitwise operations would be OK because logica tags can be combined, but little more.Sometimes, bitwise operations make sense, other times not. Enums play tworoles in D - that of an enumeration and that of a set of flags. Only for the latter do bitwise operations make sense.You'd think that with some use of a templated struct and some "alias this" we'd be able to have a strongly-typed type for storing sets of flags. It could even offer convenience functions like "getFlag" and "setFlag" to make the code read a bit nicer.
Like that attached?
flags.d
Description: Binary data
