Should I use #define, enum or const?

Question

Combine the strategies to reduce the disadvantages of a single approach. I work in embedded systems so the following solution is based on the fact that integer and bitwise operators are fast, low memory & low in flash usage.

Place the enum in a namespace to prevent the constants from polluting the global namespace.

namespace RecordType {

An enum declares and defines a compile time checked typed. Always use compile time type checking to make sure arguments and variables are given the correct type. There is no need for the typedef in C++.

enum TRecordType { xNew = 1, xDeleted = 2, xModified = 4, xExisting = 8,

Create another member for an invalid state. This can be useful as error code; for example, when you want to return the state but the I/O operation fails. It is also useful for debugging; use it in initialisation lists and destructors to know if the variable's value should be used.

xInvalid = 16 };

Consider that you have two purposes for this type. To track the current state of a record and to create a mask to select records in certain states. Create an inline function to test if the value of the type is valid for your purpose; as a state marker vs a state mask. This will catch bugs as the typedef is just an int and a value such as 0xDEADBEEF may be in your variable through uninitialised or mispointed variables.

inline bool IsValidState( TRecordType v) {
    switch(v) { case xNew: case xDeleted: case xModified: case xExisting: return true; }
    return false;
}

 inline bool IsValidMask( TRecordType v) {
    return v >= xNew  && v < xInvalid ;
}

Add a using directive if you want to use the type often.

using RecordType ::TRecordType ;

The value checking functions are useful in asserts to trap bad values as soon as they are used. The quicker you catch a bug when running, the less damage it can do.

Here are some examples to put it all together.

void showRecords(TRecordType mask) {
    assert(RecordType::IsValidMask(mask));
    // do stuff;
}

void wombleRecord(TRecord rec, TRecordType state) {
    assert(RecordType::IsValidState(state));
    if (RecordType ::xNew) {
    // ...
} in runtime

TRecordType updateRecord(TRecord rec, TRecordType newstate) {
    assert(RecordType::IsValidState(newstate));
    //...
    if (! access_was_successful) return RecordType ::xInvalid;
    return newstate;
}

The only way to ensure correct value safety is to use a dedicated class with operator overloads and that is left as an exercise for another reader.

Forget the defines

They will pollute your code.

bitfields?

struct RecordFlag {
    unsigned isnew:1, isdeleted:1, ismodified:1, isexisting:1;
};

Don't ever use that. You are more concerned with speed than with economizing 4 ints. Using bit fields is actually slower than access to any other type.

However, bit members in structs have practical drawbacks. First, the ordering of bits in memory varies from compiler to compiler. In addition, many popular compilers generate inefficient code for reading and writing bit members, and there are potentially severe thread safety issues relating to bit fields (especially on multiprocessor systems) due to the fact that most machines cannot manipulate arbitrary sets of bits in memory, but must instead load and store whole words. e.g the following would not be thread-safe, in spite of the use of a mutex

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_field:

And if you need more reasons to not use bitfields, perhaps Raymond Chen will convince you in his The Old New Thing Post: The cost-benefit analysis of bitfields for a collection of booleans at http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/11/26/9143050.aspx

const int?

namespace RecordType {
    static const uint8 xNew = 1;
    static const uint8 xDeleted = 2;
    static const uint8 xModified = 4;
    static const uint8 xExisting = 8;
}

Putting them in a namespace is cool. If they are declared in your CPP or header file, their values will be inlined. You'll be able to use switch on those values, but it will slightly increase coupling.

Ah, yes: remove the static keyword. static is deprecated in C++ when used as you do, and if uint8 is a buildin type, you won't need this to declare this in an header included by multiple sources of the same module. In the end, the code should be:

namespace RecordType {
    const uint8 xNew = 1;
    const uint8 xDeleted = 2;
    const uint8 xModified = 4;
    const uint8 xExisting = 8;
}

The problem of this approach is that your code knows the value of your constants, which increases slightly the coupling.

enum

The same as const int, with a somewhat stronger typing.

typedef enum { xNew = 1, xDeleted, xModified = 4, xExisting = 8 } RecordType;

They are still polluting the global namespace, though. By the way... Remove the typedef. You're working in C++. Those typedefs of enums and structs are polluting the code more than anything else.

The result is kinda:

enum RecordType { xNew = 1, xDeleted, xModified = 4, xExisting = 8 } ;

void doSomething(RecordType p_eMyEnum)
{
   if(p_eMyEnum == xNew)
   {
       // etc.
   }
}

As you see, your enum is polluting the global namespace. If you put this enum in an namespace, you'll have something like:

namespace RecordType {
   enum Value { xNew = 1, xDeleted, xModified = 4, xExisting = 8 } ;
}

void doSomething(RecordType::Value p_eMyEnum)
{
   if(p_eMyEnum == RecordType::xNew)
   {
       // etc.
   }
}

extern const int ?

If you want to decrease coupling (i.e. being able to hide the values of the constants, and so, modify them as desired without needing a full recompilation), you can declare the ints as extern in the header, and as constant in the CPP file, as in the following example:

// Header.hpp
namespace RecordType {
    extern const uint8 xNew ;
    extern const uint8 xDeleted ;
    extern const uint8 xModified ;
    extern const uint8 xExisting ;
}

And:

// Source.hpp
namespace RecordType {
    const uint8 xNew = 1;
    const uint8 xDeleted = 2;
    const uint8 xModified = 4;
    const uint8 xExisting = 8;
}

You won't be able to use switch on those constants, though. So in the end, pick your poison... :-p

Have you ruled out std::bitset? Sets of flags is what it's for. Do

typedef std::bitset<4> RecordType;

then

static const RecordType xNew(1);
static const RecordType xDeleted(2);
static const RecordType xModified(4);
static const RecordType xExisting(8);

Because there are a bunch of operator overloads for bitset, you can now do

RecordType rt = whatever;      // unsigned long or RecordType expression
rt |= xNew;                    // set 
rt &= ~xDeleted;               // clear 
if ((rt & xModified) != 0) ... // test

Or something very similar to that - I'd appreciate any corrections since I haven't tested this. You can also refer to the bits by index, but it's generally best to define only one set of constants, and RecordType constants are probably more useful.

Assuming you have ruled out bitset, I vote for the enum.

I don't buy that casting the enums is a serious disadvantage - OK so it's a bit noisy, and assigning an out-of-range value to an enum is undefined behaviour so it's theoretically possible to shoot yourself in the foot on some unusual C++ implementations. But if you only do it when necessary (which is when going from int to enum iirc), it's perfectly normal code that people have seen before.

I'm dubious about any space cost of the enum, too. uint8 variables and parameters probably won't use any less stack than ints, so only storage in classes matters. There are some cases where packing multiple bytes in a struct will win (in which case you can cast enums in and out of uint8 storage), but normally padding will kill the benefit anyhow.

So the enum has no disadvantages compared with the others, and as an advantage gives you a bit of type-safety (you can't assign some random integer value without explicitly casting) and clean ways of referring to everything.

For preference I'd also put the "= 2" in the enum, by the way. It's not necessary, but a "principle of least astonishment" suggests that all 4 definitions should look the same.

Here are couple of articles on const vs. macros vs. enums:

Symbolic Constants
Enumeration Constants vs. Constant Objects

I think you should avoid macros especially since you wrote most of your new code is in modern C++.