2011/6/3 John Crenshaw <johncrens...@priacta.com> > As much as I used enums in C++, I'm not sure that this is really the right > tool here, and it often introduces more problems than it solves. Specific > concerns that come to mind: > > 1. In C++ this often led to nasty needs such as a "LOG_LEVEL_COUNT" entry > at the end of the list of enums. > 2. Sometimes devs want to add items in the middle of the list for code > organization purposes. This silently changes the values of the other > constants and it isn't clear when that will or won't break stuff. > 3. Better than half the time, enums seem to be a series of bit flags, not > sequential numbers (in this case enum offers NO value over the current const > lists). > 4. The greatest value of enums in C++ is actually related to typesafety. > Admittedly, this was sometimes more of a frustration than a help, but that > was really just an implementation issue, not an inherent problem with enums > and typesafety. > 5. There is no clear path for extending the enums through inheritance. > > Allowing enums to be (optionally) named would open a clear path to address > counts and hinting, but still doesn't address the problems inherent in > automatic numbering, and would complicate the inheritance question. > > IMHO this should wait until we can address some of these items. Otherwise > the feature is just a halfbaked not-so-short shorthand for constants. > > John Crenshaw > Priacta, Inc. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
1. I'm not so sure what you mean with that statement 2. A very strong argument for using the name of the constant as the default value 3 and 4: The way I see it, type safety is the *only* valid argument for proposing enums 5: I have never felt the need for inheritance in enums. Do you have a use case for that? I also think that enums should always be named. -- Dennis Haarbrink
