enum-class

What would be the right way to write an enum inside a class? I am writing conway's game of life code in c++. So i have a patterns class which contains the info about different kind of patterns: class Patterns { public: Patterns(); ~Patterns(void); private: enum class PatternType { bloat, block, blinker, toad }; PatternType pattern_; }; My goal is not to pollute the global space here. So is it the write way of writing the enum inside of a class keeping oops concepts in mind. If not, please suggest some better alternatives and what are their benefits over this method. Any inputs on keeping

Consider the following example: struct ConvertibleStruct {}; enum class ConvertibleEC {}; struct Target { // Implicit conversion constructors Target(ConvertibleStruct) {} Target(ConvertibleEC) {} }; Target operator~(const Target& t) { return t; } Target anotherFunction(const Target& t) { return t; } int main() { ConvertibleStruct t; ConvertibleEC ec; ~t; // 1. Works finding the operator overloaded above ~ec; // 2. Fails to compile on clang 3.4 and gcc 4.8.2 operator~(ec); // 3. Works finding the operator overloaded above anotherFunction(ec); // 4. Works } Compiler versions: The above findings

Is there a way to specify the default constructor of an enum class ? I am using an enum class to specify a set of values which are allowable for a particular datatype in a library: in this case, it's the GPIO pin id numbers of a Raspberry Pi. It looks something like this: enum class PinID : int {N4 = 4, N17 = 17, /* ...etc... */ } The point of me doing this instead just of using, say, an int is to ensure that code is safe: I can static_assert (or otherwise compile-time ensure -- the actual method used is not important to me) things like that someone hasn't made a spelling error (passing a 5

Can you implement standard conformant (as described in 17.5.2.1.3 of the n3242 draft) type safe bitmasks using enum class? The way I read it, a type T is a bitmask if it supports the |,&,^,~,|=,&= and ^= operators and further you can do if(l&r) where l and r are of type T. Missing from the list are the operator != and == and to allow sorting one probably also wants to overload <. Getting the operators to works is just annoying boilerplate code but I do not see how to do if(l&r). At least the following does not compile with GCC (besides being extremely dangerous as it allows an erroneous