Yes, what I am describing is impossible. Except, it really is happening. Which is why it is so perplexing.
Yes, ddd is my next step (will have to wait for Monday). But in case there was something that g++ was leaving around that I didn't know about, I thought I'd ask. Thanks for the confirmation. I'm only guessing that the 2-parameter version is being called; inspection and run-time checking of the code shows no other way that the enumrated type data member could be set to an invalid value (only 0 and 1 are defined). In hindsight, I will likely find this guess to be incorrect because that's how most of my guesses in this case turn out. However, it provides the best description of the problem that I can think of at this time. By the way, Brian Kernigan talks about how he finds effective debugging being careful design and a few well-placed print statements. Those, and run-time traces, keep me out of the debugger for the most part. (And the robustness and maintainability of my code generally far exceeds that of those who live in the debugger. I think it's the careful design part more than the print statements, though!) However, this will be one of those nstances when I will unleash ddd/gdb on a problem. Thanks again for the insights. _______________________________________________ Help-gplusplus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
