I am used to using enum
as constants -- they're quick to write, can be placed in .h files, and work fine.
enum {BOX_LEFT=10, BOX_TOP=50, BOX_WIDTH=100, BOX_HEIGHT=50};
enum {REASONS_I_LIKE_ENUM_AS_CONSTANTS = 3};
Is this no longer a good idea?
I see good reasons to prefer enum class (conventional enums implicitly convert to int; conventional enums export their enumerators to the surrounding scope), but those are reasons to prefer old enum in this case.
I see in a thread on static constexpr int vs old-fashioned enum that old-style enum is better because with a static constexpr member you have to declare it outside the class as well. But this is apparently no longer true in C++17, and may only apply to class members anyway.
What's the preferred way in c++17?
CA1069: Enums should not have duplicate values.
You should use enum types any time you need to represent a fixed set of constants. That includes natural enum types such as the planets in our solar system and data sets where you know all possible values at compile time—for example, the choices on a menu, command line flags, and so on.
The values assigned to the enum names must be integral constant, i.e., it should not be of other types such string, float, etc. All the enum names must be unique in their scope, i.e., if we define two enum having same scope, then these two enums should have different enum names otherwise compiler will throw an error.
Two enum names can have same value. For example, in the following C program both 'Failed' and 'Freezed' have same value 0.
This is subjective.
However, this was always an abuse of enums. You're not enumerating anything; you're just stealing the enum
feature to get some unrelated with arbitrary integer values which are not intended to have their own logical "type".
That's why enum class
is not appropriate here either (because, as you pointed out, enum class
enforces the properties of an enum
that should be there but which you do not actually want).
Since there's no longer any problem with static constexpr int
, I'd use that (or constexpr inline int
, or whatever it is this week).
The example that you give for using enum
's can be rewritten as:
struct Point
{
int x;
int y;
};
struct Box
{
Point p;
int width;
int height;
};
constexpr Box b = { { 1, 2 }, 3, 4 };
int f()
{
return b.p.x;
}
Using strong types instead of int
could even be a benefit.
For me this is more legible. I could even add some functions into that.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With