From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 17 11:05:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA17494
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA17485;
          Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA06082; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:03:26 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199610171803.LAA06082@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: enum considered bad ?
To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:03:25 -0700 (MST)
Cc: phk@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199610170804.JAA05315@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> from "Luigi Rizzo" at Oct 17, 96 09:04:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > I've noticed that "enum" is hardly ever used in C programs, is this
> > because people consider it a bad idea or because they havn't really
> > got the swing of it ?
> 
> isn't it more a compatibility issue with old compilers which do not
> support it ?

Old compilers support enum... unless you are talking about "really old
compilers".

Old compilers didn't dictate option base -- enum was only guaranteed
to be monotonically increasing if no assigned value was used; I have
seen implementations which started at 0 and other whichstarted at 1.

The real problem is probably that is is not a defined sized type.  Other
than the fact that it is signed (K&R requires this for its sample code),
the size is undefined.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.