From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a55104d5a009d762eeb15be25d31a7e8@yyc.orthanc.ca>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)"  <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Date: Sun,  7 Feb 2010 15:19:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ced30ea1ca359d940d7afa69a8cd8756@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] NaN, +Inf, and -Inf, constants?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d021970c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i suspect the rationale was that, finally, C provided a way
> outside the preprocessor to give symbolic names to constants.
> why restrict that to int?

Because enum's have been int's since their inception?

I'm sympathetic to the underlying need, but making a fundamental
type of the language suddenly become variable does not seem to
be the right way of going about this.

E.g., what is the type of:

enum {
	a = 1,
	b = 2.44000000000000000000618549L,
	c = 2.44F,
	d = "this is weird",
	e = 1LL<<62,
} foo;

How on earth do you switch() on it? And what's its sizeof()?

--lyndon