Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!mips!ardent!jra!jss
From: jss@jra.ardent.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: const enums -- Lawyers opinions??
Keywords: const, enum
Message-ID: <9925@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 90 22:26:34 GMT
References: <963@rna.UUCP> <10197@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@ardent.UUCP
Reply-To: jss@jra.ardent.com ()
Organization: Ardent Computer Corp., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 18

In article <10197@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK) writes:
>
>cfront 2.0 accepts this with the appropriate warning that you're assigning
>an int to an enum -- when you or individual bits together you end up with
>values not in the set original defined in the bits enum -- so how can the
>receiver of the or results be a "bits" ?
>

The question of what an enum type "really is",  has bedeveled
the concept ever since it was introduced into C.  Over the
years a lot has been said, but I believe a consensus finally
emerged and both ANSI C and the most recent C++ reference manual agree 
that they are integral types.  

This means that its perfectly sensible to assign arbitrary integer
values to variables of enum type. 

Jerry Schwarz