From: "Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net>
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types -- problem?
Date: 2000/01/13
Date: 2000-01-13T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Slsf4.440$dw3.15342@news.wenet.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 85lht1$l8c$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Jim Rogers wrote in message <85lht1$l8c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> The simple solution to this is to declare a set of integer constants,
>not enumerated types. The constants will require no conversions at
>all.
Let me ask this then: what value is it to be able to specify the
representation of an enumeration? It seems to me that when you do this you
always want, at some point, to "get at" the value of an enumeration. Maybe
the crux of my question (or confusion) is that while enumeration
representations are allowed, there doesn't seem to be any clean way to use
them (assuming that anything called "Unchecked_" isn't "clean").
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-01-13 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-01-13 0:00 Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types -- problem? Mike Silva
2000-01-13 0:00 ` reason67
2000-01-13 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin
2000-01-13 0:00 ` Mike Silva
2000-01-13 0:00 ` Mike Silva
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Mike Silva
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2000-01-13 0:00 ` Jim Rogers
2000-01-13 0:00 ` Mike Silva [this message]
2000-01-13 0:00 ` James S. Rogers
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Vladimir Olensky
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Wrap-Up (was Re: Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types -- problem?) Mike Silva
2000-01-15 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2000-01-15 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types -- problem? Werner Pachler
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin
2000-01-14 0:00 ` reason67
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
2000-01-16 0:00 ` David A. Cobb
2000-01-14 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox