Re: enums that are really just sets of constants

[Jonathan Wakely <gtkmm kayari org>]

On 23 May 2017 at 15:29, Daniel Boles <dboles src gmail com> wrote:

On 23 May 2017 at 15:12, Kjell Ahlstedt <kjellahlstedt gmail com> wrote:

I don't understand how you can have, for instance
  void f(ResponseType r);
if ResponseType is an uninstantiable class. If ResponseType is the name of a class, and you want to treat it as if it were the name an enum, wouldn't it require something like

D'oh. Right! Carry on. :)

The language seems to make this overcomplicated. I need to search for info on whether anyone ever proposed a scoped but implicitly convertible enum, and if so, why it never got anywhere.

Then we'd have three types of enum ... that doesn't seem like it'd be an improvement.