[boost] Re: Re: IOStreams formal review start

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-10 14:46:55

"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:200409101906.i8AJ6M921012_at_lawrencewelk.systems.susq.com...
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>

> >     enum {
> >         f_open             = 1,
> >         f_input_closed     = f_open << 1,
> >         f_output_closed    = f_input_closed << 1,
> >         f_output_buffered  = f_output_closed << 1
> >     };
>
> This is a pain to read and maintain.  You should write them like
> this:
>
> enum
> {
>    f_open            = 1<<0,
>    f_input_closed    = 1<<1,
>    f_output_closed   = 1<<2,
>    f_output_buffered = 1<<3
> };
>
> You can easily spot that the values are in ascending order and
> you don't have to replicate the name of the preceding enumerator
> (which would make reordering a pain, should that be needed).

I stole this idiom from John Maddock: http://tinyurl.com/4no5s. It's supposed to
make insertion in the middle easier. I think it's the vector vs. list tradeoff.

Jonathan.