AW: [cedet-semantic] Typedef for enums

[Jans, H. <hau...@se...>]

Hi Klaus.
=20
The advantage is that you can use the type QF in prototypes
and let the compiler check the type validity for actual parameters.
=20
So you could write the following prototypes:
=20
setQF(QF qf);
=20
and if you call i.e. setQF(QF_OK) that compiles ok,
but if you use setQF(0) you get a compiler warning / error.
=20
This is common practice and i think it should work within semantic also.
=20
Regards.
=20
Hauke
=20

________________________________

Von: kla...@sd... [mailto:kla...@sd...]
Gesendet: Do 03.02.2005 10:25
An: Jans, Hauke; ced...@li...
Betreff: AW: [cedet-semantic] Typedef for enums



Hi,

>I would expect that i see 4 consts after parsing via semantic. But i =
only see the tag for QF

>but not for QF_UNDEFINED etc.

>typedef enum
>{
>  QF_UNDEFINED,
>  QF_EVALUATION_IN_PROGRESS,
>  QF_UNUSED,
>  QF_OK
>} QF;

If you write:

enum QF
{
  QF_UNDEFINED,
  QF_EVALUATION_IN_PROGRESS,
  QF_UNUSED,
  QF_OK
};

you will see (in ECB for example):
[-] QF:enum
 `- [-] [Attributes]
     |  QF_UNDEFINED:int
     |  QF_EVALUATION_IN_PROGRESS:int
     |  QF_UNUSED:int
     `- QF_OK:int

which is what you want - at least i assume ;-)

Question: What is the advantage when you use your
typedef-notation compared to mine??

BTW: If yours is correct c++/c-code and also in common
use then the semantic-parser should parse it - of course...

Ciao,
Klaus


Regards



Hauke