Why is enum class preferred over plain enum?
I heard a few people recommending to use enum classes in C++ because of their type safety.
But what does that really mean?
Solution 1:
C++ has two kinds of enum
:
-
enum class
es - Plain
enum
s
Here are a couple of examples on how to declare them:
enum class Color { red, green, blue }; // enum class
enum Animal { dog, cat, bird, human }; // plain enum
What is the difference between the two?
-
enum class
es - enumerator names are local to the enum and their values do not implicitly convert to other types (like anotherenum
orint
) -
Plain
enum
s - where enumerator names are in the same scope as the enum and their values implicitly convert to integers and other types
Example:
enum Color { red, green, blue }; // plain enum
enum Card { red_card, green_card, yellow_card }; // another plain enum
enum class Animal { dog, deer, cat, bird, human }; // enum class
enum class Mammal { kangaroo, deer, human }; // another enum class
void fun() {
// examples of bad use of plain enums:
Color color = Color::red;
Card card = Card::green_card;
int num = color; // no problem
if (color == Card::red_card) // no problem (bad)
cout << "bad" << endl;
if (card == Color::green) // no problem (bad)
cout << "bad" << endl;
// examples of good use of enum classes (safe)
Animal a = Animal::deer;
Mammal m = Mammal::deer;
int num2 = a; // error
if (m == a) // error (good)
cout << "bad" << endl;
if (a == Mammal::deer) // error (good)
cout << "bad" << endl;
}
Conclusion:
enum class
es should be preferred because they cause fewer surprises that could potentially lead to bugs.
Solution 2:
From Bjarne Stroustrup's C++11 FAQ:
The
enum class
es ("new enums", "strong enums") address three problems with traditional C++ enumerations:
- conventional enums implicitly convert to int, causing errors when someone does not want an enumeration to act as an integer.
- conventional enums export their enumerators to the surrounding scope, causing name clashes.
- the underlying type of an
enum
cannot be specified, causing confusion, compatibility problems, and makes forward declaration impossible.The new enums are "enum class" because they combine aspects of traditional enumerations (names values) with aspects of classes (scoped members and absence of conversions).
So, as mentioned by other users, the "strong enums" would make the code safer.
The underlying type of a "classic" enum
shall be an integer type large enough to fit all the values of the enum
; this is usually an int
. Also each enumerated type shall be compatible with char
or a signed/unsigned integer type.
This is a wide description of what an enum
underlying type must be, so each compiler will take decisions on his own about the underlying type of the classic enum
and sometimes the result could be surprising.
For example, I've seen code like this a bunch of times:
enum E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS
{
E_APPLE = 0x01,
E_WATERMELON = 0x02,
E_COCONUT = 0x04,
E_STRAWBERRY = 0x08,
E_CHERRY = 0x10,
E_PINEAPPLE = 0x20,
E_BANANA = 0x40,
E_MANGO = 0x80,
E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS_FORCE8 = 0xFF // 'Force' 8bits, how can you tell?
};
In the code above, some naive coder is thinking that the compiler will store the E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS
values into an unsigned 8bit type... but there's no warranty about it: the compiler may choose unsigned char
or int
or short
, any of those types are large enough to fit all the values seen in the enum
. Adding the field E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS_FORCE8
is a burden and doesn't forces the compiler to make any kind of choice about the underlying type of the enum
.
If there's some piece of code that rely on the type size and/or assumes that E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS
would be of some width (e.g: serialization routines) this code could behave in some weird ways depending on the compiler thoughts.
And to make matters worse, if some workmate adds carelessly a new value to our enum
:
E_DEVIL_FRUIT = 0x100, // New fruit, with value greater than 8bits
The compiler doesn't complain about it! It just resizes the type to fit all the values of the enum
(assuming that the compiler were using the smallest type possible, which is an assumption that we cannot do). This simple and careless addition to the enum
could subtlety break related code.
Since C++11 is possible to specify the underlying type for enum
and enum class
(thanks rdb) so this issue is neatly addressed:
enum class E_MY_FAVOURITE_FRUITS : unsigned char
{
E_APPLE = 0x01,
E_WATERMELON = 0x02,
E_COCONUT = 0x04,
E_STRAWBERRY = 0x08,
E_CHERRY = 0x10,
E_PINEAPPLE = 0x20,
E_BANANA = 0x40,
E_MANGO = 0x80,
E_DEVIL_FRUIT = 0x100, // Warning!: constant value truncated
};
Specifying the underlying type if a field have an expression out of the range of this type the compiler will complain instead of changing the underlying type.
I think that this is a good safety improvement.
So Why is enum class preferred over plain enum?, if we can choose the underlying type for scoped(enum class
) and unscoped (enum
) enums what else makes enum class
a better choice?:
- They don't convert implicitly to
int
. - They don't pollute the surrounding namespace.
- They can be forward-declared.
Solution 3:
The basic advantage of using enum class over normal enums is that you may have same enum variables for 2 different enums and still can resolve them(which has been mentioned as type safe by OP)
For eg:
enum class Color1 { red, green, blue }; //this will compile
enum class Color2 { red, green, blue };
enum Color1 { red, green, blue }; //this will not compile
enum Color2 { red, green, blue };
As for the basic enums, compiler will not be able to distinguish whether red
is refering to the type Color1
or Color2
as in hte below statement.
enum Color1 { red, green, blue };
enum Color2 { red, green, blue };
int x = red; //Compile time error(which red are you refering to??)
Solution 4:
Enumerations are used to represent a set of integer values.
The class
keyword after the enum
specifies that the enumeration is strongly typed and its enumerators are scoped. This way enum
classes prevents accidental misuse of constants.
For Example:
enum class Animal{Dog, Cat, Tiger};
enum class Pets{Dog, Parrot};
Here we can not mix Animal and Pets values.
Animal a = Dog; // Error: which DOG?
Animal a = Pets::Dog // Pets::Dog is not an Animal