Can this be done?
enum A
{
enum B
{
SOMETHING1,
SOMETHING2
};
enum C
{
SOMETHING3,
SOMETHING4
};
};
If not is there an alternative solution?
The purpose of this question: Want/need to be able to do something like this:
enum class ElementaryParticleTypes
{
enum class MATTER
{
enum class MESONS
{
PI
};
enum class BARYONS
{
PROTON,
NEUTRON
};
enum class LEPTONS
{
ELECTRON
};
};
enum class ANTI_MATTER
{
enum class ANTI_MESONS
{
ANTI_PI
};
enum class ANTI_BARYONS
{
ANTI_PROTON
ANTI_NEUTRON
};
enum class ANTI_LEPTONS
{
POSITRON
};
};
};
Wish to use the strongly-typed capabilities.
No, they cannot be nested that way. In fact, any compiler would reject it.
If not is there an alternative solution?
That mostly depends on what you are trying to achieve (solution to what problem?). If your goal is to be able to write something like A::B::SOMETHING1
, you could just define them within a namespace, this way:
namespace A
{
enum B
{
SOMETHING1,
SOMETHING2
};
enum C
{
SOMETHING3,
SOMETHING4
};
}
Seeing that in this particular case, the enumerations aren’t likely to change often, you could go for:
namespace ParticleTypes {
namespace Matter {
enum Mesons {
Pi
};
enum Baryons {
Proton = Pi + 1,
Neutron
};
enum Leptons {
Electron = Neutron + 1
};
}
namespace AntiMatter {
enum AntiMesons {
AntiPi = Matter::Electron + 1
};
// ...
}
}
I do wonder, however, why you want different enum
types for different types of particles. Do you have functions which accept an argument of type Mesons
, but not of type Leptons
? If not, and all your functions accept any of the particles, then use a single enum
– and preferably, drop the long prefixes to the names of the values like MATTER_MESONS_
, MATTER_BARYONS_
etc.
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