Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!gatech!rutgers!husc6!cca!mirror!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: enum - enum ?
Message-ID: <629@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 13:01:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.629
Posted: Fri Jun 26 13:01:43 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 09:54:37 EDT
References: <139@starfire.UUCP> <516@haddock.UUCP> <20540@sun.uucp> <525@haddock.UUCP> <818@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 24

In article <818@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mcgill-vision!mouse (der Mouse) writes:
>In article <525@haddock.UUCP>, karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer) writes:
>> Perhaps you're right; the May86 dpANS lists under Common Warnings: "A
>> value is given to an object of an enumeration type other than by
>> assignment of an enumeration constant that is a member of that type."
>
>For example, [ x=RED is OK, but y=x is not ].  Good heavens.
>
>> (Which seems unusually strict, as it would produce a warning for some
>> perfectly valid code written under the "strong enum" model.)
>
>I certainly see what you mean.  I hope they come to their senses.

The Oct86 dpANS (which I did not have at hand when I posted earlier) has
changed this to "constant or variable".  Better, but I'm still not sure
whether this is sufficient -- It still seems to allow a warning for x=y[i] or
x=z().  (But "i=x", which is equally illegal under the strong model, is not
listed as a Common Warning.  Hmm.)

Of course, A.5 is not part of the Standard itself, and so should not be
considered binding.  In practice, I expect the compiler-writers will use
common sense in this regard.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint