Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: const enums -- Lawyers opinions??
Keywords: const, enum
Message-ID: <10231@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 90 17:51:38 GMT
References: <963@rna.UUCP> <10197@microsoft.UUCP> <9925@ardent.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (JAMES ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 23

>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. 

Hm, are you saying this has changed recently? In my [not very new] reference
manual appendix B pg 109 says:

enum e { A };

sizeof(A) equals sizeof(e), which need not equal sizeof(int)

[unlike ANSI-C]
For example, it would not be unreasonable for some compiler on some
machine to choose to represent small enums in a byte, in which case 
assigning an int to such an enum could lead to an unexpected truncation.
"Integral" is not the same as "integer."  

Or has this changed?