> On 14. Aug 2018, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø <tor.arne.ves...@qt.io> wrote: > > >> On 14 Aug 2018, at 13:13, Eike Ziller <eike.zil...@qt.io> wrote: >> >> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2347.pdf states the >> problems that were the driver for creating strongly typed enums: >> >> 1. Implicit conversion to integer >> 2. Inability to specify underlying type > > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/enum describes types for unscoped > enums too, curious, what’s the difference for the scoped enums? > >> 3. Scoping >> >>> that specifically mentions the enum inside a class use case a primary >>> driver? >> >> Why would the implicit conversion problem be any different for enums inside >> a class? > > It wouldn’t. I was referring to the scoping/name clash, which is what this > discussion has been largely focusing on (so far).
Now you cut off context. I was answering to: >>>> >>>> There is one more very important aspect. Scoped enums can have dedicated >>> types and are type safe. This could have easily caught issues like (which >>> coincidently was pointed out to me this morning): >>>> >>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/236736/ >>>> >>>> And I believe that is a very good reason to still prefer scoped enums. >>> >>> How frequent is this class of bugs? >> >> Frequent enough for it being the primary driver behind the introduction of >> scoped enums?!? > > Do you have a source for this, that specifically mentions the enum inside a > class use case a primary driver? Which is about type-safety, not scoping. -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company GmbH Rudower Chaussee 13 D-12489 Berlin eike.zil...@qt.io http://qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
