f



How is "static const int" better than "static enum"?

can not the "static const int" be replaced by "static enum" anywhere?

is it necessary that define special initialization syntax for "static const int"?
0
ajaxchelsea
12/3/2003 6:13:36 AM
comp.lang.c++ 49423 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

3 Replies
331 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 31

Ajax Chelsea wrote:

> can not the "static const int" be replaced by "static enum" anywhere?

enum is a type, not a variable, so it needs no 'static' storage category.

'int' has an implementation-defined size, and its type is compatible with
variable ints.

'enum' is only guaranteed to have enough bits to store any value used in
their definition.

For a while, compilers could not treat 'static const int' inside a class as
a compile-time constant, and so one couldn't size arrays with it and such.
Using 'enum' as a scalar instead of a typed flag was an easy work-around.

> is it necessary that define special initialization syntax for "static
const int"?

?

Constant static data are the only things that can declare inside a class.
This (I suspect) grants them their compile-time constant status.

This is all well-formed, with defined behavior:

    class yo { public:
        static int z (42);
        };

    char whatever[yo::z];

But an enum would have worked the same, too.

--
  Phlip


0
phlip_cpp (3852)
12/3/2003 6:39:06 AM
Phlip wrote in news:eyfzb.33503$nj7.10044@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:

> This is all well-formed, with defined behavior:
> 
>     class yo { public:
>         static int z (42);
>         };
> 
>     char whatever[yo::z];
> 
> But an enum would have worked the same, too.
> 
> 

Also if you also want to use the static integral constant in a 
non-compile-time context you also need a definition outside the class,

/* Not in a header file (templates aside) 
*/
int yo::z; /* Note no initializer */

int main()
{
  int z = yo::z;
  int const *zp = &yo::x;
}

enum's don't have this requirment, which is perhapse one way in which
enum's are "better" than static int const's.

Cranking the level of triviality up a notch. An instance of an enum 
can also be a static integral constant,

#include <iostream>

struct A
{
  enum B { C, D, E };
  static B const b = A::E;
};

A::B const A::b;

int main()
{
  std::cerr << A::b << "\n";
}
 
Rob.
-- 
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/
0
rtw (385)
12/3/2003 11:44:50 AM
Rob Williscroft <rtw@freenet.REMOVE.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Xns9446775E0B83CukcoREMOVEfreenetrtw@195.129.110.204>...
> 
> Cranking the level of triviality up a notch. An instance of an enum 
> can also be a static integral constant,
> 
> #include <iostream>
> 
> struct A
> {
>   enum B { C, D, E };
>   static B const b = A::E;
> };
> 
> A::B const A::b;
> 
> int main()
> {
>   std::cerr << A::b << "\n";
> }
>  
> Rob.

so I consider that it is not necessary to specialize syntax of "static
const int(long...)", haha
0
ajaxchelsea
12/5/2003 12:37:07 AM
Reply: