Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o

Subject: Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o
From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-19 19:42:10

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:26 AM, DE <satan66613_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > I don't see how it hurts, so I implemented your suggestion; the constants
> > are now defined as enum { val = # }, instead of having a type.  Thanks
> for
> > your feedback.
> well actually i meant that you can define all constants in one unnamed
> enum like
>
>    enum {
>        MAX_SPLITS = 11,
>        MAX_FINISHING_SPLITS = MAX_SPLITS + 1,
>        LOG_MEAN_BIN_SIZE = 2,
>        LOG_MIN_SPLIT_COUNT = 9,
>        LOG_FINISHING_COUNT = 31,
>        FLOAT_LOG_MEAN_BIN_SIZE = 2,
>        FLOAT_LOG_MIN_SPLIT_COUNT = 8,
>        FLOAT_LOG_FINISHING_COUNT = 4,
>        MIN_SORT_SIZE = 3000
>    };
>  <http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
>

Is there any reason why one approach (unnamed enum for each value vs. single
unnamed enum for all) is better than the other?