[Implemented] Enumeration

[User_Russian]

Occasionally constants are used as flags and each flag must conform to a particular bit in the variable.
Now Enumeration does not support this method of enumeration constants.
Perhaps you need to add a new method for parameter Step.

Code: Select all

Enumeration 1 Step #PB_Enumeration_Bits
  #Flag_1 ; Will be 1
  #Flag_2 ; Will be 2
  #Flag_3 ; Will be 4
  #Flag_4 ; Will be 8
EndEnumeration

[uwekel]

+1

[PB]

> Enumeration does not support this method of enumeration constants

Code: Select all

Macro NextBit
  (#PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue-1)*2
EndMacro

Enumeration 1
  #Flag1
  #Flag2=NextBit
  #Flag3=NextBit
  #Flag4=NextBit
  #Flag5=NextBit
EndEnumeration

Debug #Flag1 ; 1
Debug #Flag2 ; 2
Debug #Flag3 ; 4
Debug #Flag4 ; 8
Debug #Flag5 ; 16

[davido]

+1

See this: Step value to the power of X - http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=23821

[luis]

Already req. -> http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=52244

[Demivec]

Already req. -> http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=52244

To add to your history list, it has also been requested in these locations (oldest is last):

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?p=392839
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=40649
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=38281
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=31142
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=23821

[rsts]

> Enumeration does not support this method of enumeration constants

Code: Select all

Macro NextBit
  (#PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue-1)*2
EndMacro

The more you post workarounds, the less likely it'll be done natively.

[CSHW89]

or here...
http://www.purebasic.fr/german/viewtopi ... =8&t=25955

lg Kevin

[skywalk]

For positive and negative series...

Code: Select all

Macro HASH
  #
EndMacro
Macro ENUM_RESET(n=0)
  Enumeration n
  EndEnumeration
EndMacro
Macro ENUM_x2(n, Name, negative=0)
  ; Create enumeration constant/flag for later use.
  ; Positive (0,1,2,4,...) or Negative (0,-1,-2,-4,...) series.
  ; Enumerations support Long, Not Quad.
  CompilerIf #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue = 0
    Enumeration #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue
      HASH#Name#n
  CompilerElseIf #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue = 1
    CompilerIf negative
      Enumeration #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue Step -1
        HASH#Name#n = -#PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue
    CompilerElse
      Enumeration #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue
        HASH#Name#n
    CompilerEndIf
  CompilerElse    ; #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue >= 2
    CompilerIf negative
      Enumeration #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue Step -1
        HASH#Name#n = (#PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue + 1) * 2
    CompilerElse
      Enumeration #PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue Step 1
        HASH#Name#n = (#PB_Compiler_EnumerationValue - 1) * 2
    CompilerEndIf
  CompilerEndIf
  EndEnumeration
EndMacro
Debug "-- Positive Constants/Flags --"
ENUM_RESET(0)
ENUM_x2(0,BIT)    : Debug "#bit0 = " + #bit0
ENUM_x2(1,BIT)    : Debug "#bit1 = " + #bit1
ENUM_x2(2,BIT)    : Debug "#bit2 = " + #bit2
ENUM_x2(3,BIT)    : Debug "#bit3 = " + #bit3
ENUM_x2(4,BIT)    : Debug "#bit4 = " + #bit4
ENUM_x2(5,BIT)    : Debug "#bit5 = " + #bit5
ENUM_x2(6,BIT)    : Debug "#bit6 = " + #bit6
ENUM_x2(7,BIT)    : Debug "#bit7 = " + #bit7
Debug "-- Negative Constants/Flags --"
ENUM_RESET(0)
ENUM_x2(0,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn0 = " + #bitn0
ENUM_x2(1,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn1 = " + #bitn1
ENUM_x2(2,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn2 = " + #bitn2
ENUM_x2(3,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn3 = " + #bitn3
ENUM_x2(4,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn4 = " + #bitn4
ENUM_x2(5,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn5 = " + #bitn5
ENUM_x2(6,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn6 = " + #bitn6
ENUM_x2(7,BITn,1) : Debug "#bitn7 = " + #bitn7

[skywalk]

or here...
http://www.purebasic.fr/german/viewtopi ... =8&t=25955

lg Kevin

That code is broken with the addition of Bool().

[PB]

> The more you post workarounds, the less likely it'll be done natively.

That's right. And my point there still stands. This request doesn't need
a native solution, as shown. It's quick and simple to do it yourself. Are
we programmers or not?

[rsts]

If it still stands, why did you post a work around?

[PB]

To show that such simple requests can be done by the "programmer".

[rsts]

You've confused me.

If you like workarounds why did you complain about the same one in this post?
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=23821

The more you post workarounds, the less likely it'll be done natively.

[Tenaja]

To show that such simple requests can be done by the "programmer".

That can be a slippery slope... afterall, if you take that literally, why is Fred making any updates???