On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 10:49 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | So you don't see any value whatsoever to having (for instance) the
> | individual constants of 'enum machine_mode' be inaccessible in most of
> | GCC? 'cos I sure do.
>
> What I'm saying is that when you have a name like EXPAND_NORMAL, you
> do not need to know the value it represents. Just that it names a
> constant.
We appear to be still talking about two different cases. I am talking
about the case where, in C++, you might declare something like
class machine_mode
{
enum {
VOIDmode, SImode, // ...
} value;
// accessors, whatever ...
};
and then pass around 'machine_mode' objects. Does this help?
zw
