Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: a doubt about c |
| Date | 2011-06-11 11:55 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnfwng9p16.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | <7523b6ca-ef28-41c3-99d8-c60273641ddf@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <slrniv6vd0.qel.angel+news@pearlgates.net> |
Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 2011-06-11, Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Enumeration defines constants used in c++, but not seen any in c, why?
>
> It's mainly historical. Enums were originally not a part of the C
> language when K&R designed it; they were first added in C89. Many
> sources still use #defines over enums, and both forms are acceptable
> as in C there is functionally very little difference between them.
Enums are older than that. If I recall correctly, they were added
shortly after K&R1, which was published in 1978.
One drawback of enums is that they're only of type int; you can't use
them to define constants of other types, including floating-point types.
Arguably using an enum to define a single constant:
enum { max = 1000 };
is an abuse of the feature, which is intended to be used to define a
group of closely related constants. Of course that stop me from using
it that way.
What I'd really like to see is for C to adopt C++'s feature, where
a const object of numeric type whose initializer is a constant
expression can be used as a constant:
const int max = 1000;
const double pi = 3.14159265358979;
But it's probably too late to add that to C201X.
(Incidentally, the word "doubt" is not synonymous with "question",
at least not in most dialects of English. A "doubt" generally
implies that you disbelieve something.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
a doubt about c Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 06:11 -0700
Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-11 09:36 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 14:37 +0000
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 11:55 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 20:41 +0000
Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 08:58 +1200
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:09 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-11 18:25 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:43 +1200
Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 05:38 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:12 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 10:59 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:07 +0100
Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:33 -0700
Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 09:53 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:46 +0100
Re: a doubt about c DSF <notavalid@address.here> - 2011-06-11 18:53 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 16:18 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-11 21:13 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 14:56 +1200
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 20:24 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 08:10 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:49 +1200
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:36 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-12 00:23 +0100
Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000
Re: a doubt about c Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-15 15:44 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-15 19:57 -0700
Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:39 +0100
Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-17 15:39 +0100
Re: a doubt about c Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 14:49 +0000
Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 12:00 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 11:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 13:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:01 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-17 22:16 +0000
Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-18 02:24 +0100
Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:09 -0600
[OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-12 11:22 -0700
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-12 11:44 -0700
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Ralph Spitzner <rasp@spitzner.org> - 2011-06-13 11:31 +0200
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 10:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-17 07:52 +0100
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-19 00:41 -0700
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-19 07:04 -0400
Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Bill Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com> - 2011-06-23 11:03 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 11:23 -0500
Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 13:56 -0400
Re: a doubt about c "dr.oktopus" <blindwilly@freeonline.zzn.com> - 2011-06-11 12:53 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2011-06-11 16:01 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 13:07 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 14:13 -0600
Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-11 23:31 +0100
Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 20:07 -0400
Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:05 -0600
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 16:42 -0500
Re: a doubt about c "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-11 14:23 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:27 -0500
Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:42 -0700
Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000
csiph-web