Re: enums that are really just sets of constants

[Ian Arkver <ian arkver dev gmail com>]

On 23/05/17 08:51, Kjell Ahlstedt wrote:
> Den 2017-05-13 kl. 10:04, skrev Kjell Ahlstedt:
> > Yet another suggestion in 
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86864#c43
> Can we decide what to do with the few enums that we want to be 
> implicitly convertible to int? My suggestion in 
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86864#c43 is
>
>    class ResponseType_Enum final
>    {
>    public:
>      enum ResponseType
>      {
>        NONE = -1,
>        REJECT = -2,
>        ACCEPT = -3,
>        ...
>      };
>      ResponseType_Enum() = delete;
>    };
>    using ResponseType = ResponseType_Enum::ResponseType;
>
> I tried to make a mixture of a plain (old-style) enum and an enum class. 
> It shall be implicitly convertible to int, and its enumerators shall be 
> scoped. In other respects it shall be possible to use it as if it's an 
> enum, e.g.
>
>    ResponseType r = ResponseType::REJECT;
>    int i = r;
> but not
>    r = REJECT;
>    i = REJECT;
> and preferably not
>    r = i;
>
> Daniel has remarked that _Enum is not a good suffix for a class name. I 
> agree. Can you think of a better suffix? I don't want to call the class 
> /ResponseType/. That would clash with /using ResponseType = .../. If it 
> shall be possible to use /ResponseType/ as if it's the name of an enum, 
> it must be the name of an enum or an alias for a name of an enum. Or are 
> there other possibilities that are not too complicated?

ResponseType_Values maybe?

Regards,
Ian