> > Does GCC assign any type to enums that can be specified in an
> assignment
> operator?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. I assume a C++ context, and not a
> C
> context (which has different rules regarding enum types).
>
> What is the use case scenario? Do you mean something like this...
>
> - - - - -
> enum Foo { Uno, Dos, Tres };
>
> class Bar
> {
> int m;
> public:
> Bar() : m(Uno) { }
> Bar(Foo foo) : m(foo) { }
> Bar(Bar const& bar) : m(bar.m) { }
> Bar& operator = (Foo foo) { m = foo; return *this; }
> operator Foo() const { return Foo(m); }
> };
> - - - - -
>
> --Eljay
>
I'm sorry, perhaps to be more specific, I was referring more so (if not
entirely) to anonymous enums (never really ever use tagged enums)
Since asked, basicly imagine this:
enum{ Uno, Dos, Tres }; //anonymous
class Bar
{
int m;
public:
Bar& operator = (unsigned int foo) { m = foo; return *this; }
Bar& operator = (signed int foo) { m = foo; return *this; }
};
You could substitute pretty much any number integral assignment operators.
Now say:
Bar bar; bar = Uno; //error: assignment operators are ambiguous
Whereas, with the Windows compiler (msvc for short) Uno will be treated as
an int (signed -- perhaps more specifically a const long int if the option
exists) ...basicly msvc resolves this ambiguity by choosing the closest
match on a well defined top down prioritized basis, whereas GCC just gives
up and declares ambiguity.
Its mostly just annoying... turns out though I already had an alternative
assignment for all of the cases I've ran into so far during the porting
process.
So I hope that clears everything up. Appreciate your curiosity.
sincerely,
michael
PS: I will go ahead and repost this in the Nabble forums if it doesn't pop
up (my apologies if it is multiposted to the mailing lists etc)
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Does-GCC-assign-any-type-to-enums-that-can-be-specified-in-an-assignment-operator--tf3967638.html#a11269077
Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
