Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jas
From: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: stronger type checking of enums
Message-ID: <28281@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 3 Mar 89 19:34:20 GMT
References: <DLD.89Mar3120212@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jas@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Jim Shankland)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 10

In article <DLD.89Mar3120212@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs) writes:
>Having the greatest respect for Dr. Stroustrup's judgement,
>I'm sure there is a good reason for [not having stronger type checking
>of enums], but I can't think of what it might be just sitting here.

I doubt it.  enums were a half-baked afterthought (heh) in C; C++
probably just inherited them as is.  Nobody's perfect.

Jim Shankland
jas@ernie.berkeley.edu