Re: [boost] [Better Enums] More complete release - feedback requested

On Jun 11, 2015, at 03:12, Sam Kellett wrote:

Channel::_from_string(“Red”);

...

vs. better_enums::traits<Channel>::from_string(“Red”);

I could get some degree of type inference to happen by wrapping the traits functions in freestanding template functions, but it was still too verbose (IMO), and also threw away the advantage of a uniform and easy-to-remember interface.

I would prefer free-functions in a namespace. Something like:

better_enums::from_string<Channel>("Red");

(although I think the namespace is too long. Maybe just 'enums’?)

That’s exactly what I ended up with. Ok, I’ll update and publish the traits branch again in a few days, and adapt some examples so that it’s easy to compare.

...

[snip]

...

B. make size a constexpr function

+1

I think you should look to the future and give pay-off to people using more modern C++. However you can macro-ize the constexpr keyword so that it is constexpr is supported or nothing if not.

BOOST_NO_CXX11_CONSTEXPR will do the check for you.

I’ve already done this, and I use it throughout enum.h. It’s not a problem to make a size() function constexpr only when supported, I am just not so comfortable throwing away size as an integral constant for non-C++11 users. Perhaps I can make size() a function and provide an alternative constant with an ugly name for those who might need it? Do people still use C++03? And, again, what is the rationale for size being a function?