> OK, I see now: there is a difference between C enums and C++ enums. Your > example was about C++ enums. My example was about C enums. The C enums > are defined to allow any integer value, whereas C++ enums are strongly > typed. In the pages cited, there's no mention of valid ranges, only that for C++ enums, you need static_cast<>, and that "In the original C and C++ enum types, the unqualified enumerators are visible throughout the scope in which the enum is declared. In scoped enums, the enumerator name must be qualified by the enum type name." That's just our $SCOPEDENUMS switch. So it really is undefined and clang takes the unsafe option. Sounds familiar.
> C enums: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/whbyts4t.aspx > https://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.pdf > C++ enums: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2dzy4k6e.aspx C# enums: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/enum "A variable of type Days can be assigned any value in the range of the underlying type; the values are not limited to the named constants." I mentioned that in passing before, if we take reference from a C-style language, we should probably use one that shares more ideas (and the lead designer). _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
