Bug 3999 and 4261

[so]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:06:51 +0300, Rainer Deyke <rainerd at eldwood.com>  
wrote:

> On 8/31/2010 19:46, bearophile wrote:
>> But you can use const for constants that are known at run-time only.
>> While you can't use enum for constant known at run-time.
>
> In C++, const is used for both run-time and compile-time constants.  In
> practice, this works out fine.  It its value can only be known at
> run-time, it's a run-time constant.  If its value is used at
> compile-time, it's a compile-time constant.  If both of these apply,
> it's an error.  If neither applies, nobody cares if it's a compile-time
> or run-time constant.
>
> (The actual rules in C++ are a bit more complex, less intuitive, and
> less useful than that, which is presumably why Walter chose not to copy
> the C++ in this case.  Still, overloading 'const' for both compile-time
> and run-time constants is viable, and more intuitive than the current
> situation with 'enum'.)

I have never had troubles with C++ compile/runtime "const" difference,
and don't think it is a problem in C++. With this in mind "enum" is a  
great keyword
of choice to express compile-time types, as long as it is forbidden for  
run-time constants.
(I hope that example of bearophile is just a bug.)

Thanks.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/