John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Help !
>
| template <typename T> class enum_set {
| public:
| typedef int value_type;
|
| enum_set() : val_(0) {}
| enum_set(T t) : val_(t) {}
|
| bool operator==(enum_set<T> const & s) const {
| return val_ == s.val_;
| }
should not be class function
(and you cheat again by introducing a int... why should that type
really make an apperance?)
| bool operator!=(enum_set<T> const & s) const {
| return !(s == *this);
| }
should not be class function
(better than last time.)
| enum_set operator|(enum_set<T> const & s) const {
| return enum_set<T>(val_ | s.val_);
| }
should not be class function
| enum_set operator&(enum_set<T> const & s) const {
| return enum_set<T>(val_ & s.val_);
| }
should not be class function
| enum_set & operator=(enum_set<T> const & s) {
| val_ = s.val_; return *this;
| }
ok as class function.
| void operator|=(enum_set<T> const & s) {
| (*this) = (*this) | s;
| }
should not be class function.
| void operator&=(enum_set<T> const & s) {
| (*this) = (*this) & s;
| }
should not be class function
| private:
| // used by operators above
| enum_set(value_type v) : val_(v) { }
No, do not do this, use static_cast in the functions that need it
instead. (btw. are you sure it is used at all? T is not value_type)
| value_type val_;
| };
>
| HTF do I get :
>
| if (blah & key_modifier::ctrl)
>
| to work ??
What type is blag?
and since LHS is not of type enum_set<> you operator
enum_set<>::operator& does not come into play.
| operator bool() conversion just gives ambiguous overloads
Don't do that then...
As said I do not like this kind of template classes a lot, in cases
like this it is, IMHO, a lot better to use concrete classes.
| Please diss the above where necessary as well please.
more?
--
Lgb
