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

[Ajax Chelsea]

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

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

[Phlip]

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

Ajax Chelsea wrote:
[color=blue]
> can not the "static const int" be replaced by "static enum" anywhere?[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> is it necessary that define special initialization syntax for "static[/color]
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

[Rob Williscroft]

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

Phlip wrote in news:eyfzb.3350 3$nj7.10044@new ssvr32.news.pro digy.com:
[color=blue]
> 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.
>
>[/color]

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/

[Ajax Chelsea]

Re: How is &quot;static const int&quot; better than &quot;static enum&quot;?

Rob Williscroft <rtw@freenet.RE MOVE.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Xns944677 5E0B83CukcoREMO VEfreenetrtw@19 5.129.110.204>. ..[color=blue]
>
> 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.[/color]

so I consider that it is not necessary to specialize syntax of "static
const int(long...)", haha