Den 2017-05-23 kl. 10:44, skrev Daniel Boles:
This seems too simple to be an option, but I have to ask :) What about
ResponseTypeClass or similar? It seems like the most specific thing
(without getting ridiculous like ResponseTypeDummyScopingClass, heh)
Having said that, my reflex is still to prefer class ResponseType {
enum EnumOrAnonymous {...} } - which I know was discussed:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86864#c29
but I don't really see why it was rejected in favour of the current
proposal involving the typedef.
Kjell said:
[The things I want are] perhaps possible to achieve if ResponseType is the
name of the class,
but it won't be a minimal wrapper class.
Why not? Surely it can stlll be final/uninstantiable/etc? All that
changes is the names of the class and its contained enum, and the fact
that you would not need to generate a using declaration for the
latter. Things like ResponseType::NONE are still possible and work
anywhere that an int or enumerator would be expected.
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
class ResponseType final
{
public:
enum Enum
{
NONE = -1,
REJECT = -2,
ACCEPT = -3,
...
};
ResponseType() = default;
ResponseType(Enum value) : m_value(value) {}
operator int() { return m_value; }
private:
Enum m_value = Enum();
};
Do I require too much of these enums? I try to make something that can
be used like an enum class, except for one thing: It shall be implicitly
convertible to int. I suspect that this gtkmm-list thread has become
longer than necessary because our requirements have been very vague.
Kjell
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
gtkmm-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
