From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-10 10:19:12
On 12/10/2005 06:55 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
[snip]
> I haven't really been following this conversion, but why do you need an array at
> all? You have a sequence containing enumerator names. You can generate a
> switch statement just as easily as you can the enum itself:
>
> switch (v) {
> case False:
> return "False";
> case True:
> return "True";
> // etc.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Mensonides
Hmm... An array *seems* "cleaner" or "more object-oriented". I only
say more "object-oriented" because switch statements were used before
there were virtual functions. However, maybe that's my prejudice, and
I'll admit "cleaner" and "more object-oriented" are pretty nebulous.
Anyway, an example of generating such a switch statement is in
vault under "Template Metaprogramming" in PP_RECFLD.zip. The
array version of the same code is in little.funvec_.zip in
little.funvec_constcvec.cpp.