Re: [boost] BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT problem

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 16:09:20

Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> John Max Skaller wrote:
> > I think this macro is useless and should be removed altogether.
> >
> > 1. If you're declaring an integral constant, use an enum
> > 2. Otherwise make the definition out of class.
> 
> Integral constants do not always have integer type; in fact, if you search
> for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT on boost sources, you'll see that 'bool' is much
> more common here. 

        So (2) applies.

> IMO using enum trick to define something that is not an
> enumeration type at all is ugly, obscures both the code and the intent, 

        I'm sorry, but while I agree, the use of a macro
is much uglier and more obscure, so your argument has no weight.
We're not comparing 'enum' with 'static const int', but with
use of a proprietary MACRO.

> > [And I'd argue the enum is terser anyhow]
> 
> And I'd argue that enum syntax is ugly ;).

        You prefer a MACRO??

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
New generation programming language Felix  http://felix.sourceforge.net
Literate Programming tool Interscript     
http://Interscript.sourceforge.net