Extending enums in C++?

The following code works well.

enum Enum {A,B,C};
enum EnumEx {D=C+1,E,F};

If you were able to create a subclass of an enum it'd have to work the other way around.

The set of instances in a sub-class is a subset of the instances in the super-class. Think about the standard "Shape" example. The Shape class represents the set of all Shapes. The Circle class, its subclass, represents the subset of Shapes that are Circles.

So to be consistent, a subclass of an enum would have to contain a subset of the elements in the enum it inherits from.

(And no, C++ doesn't support this.)

No, there is not.

enum are really the poor thing in C++, and that's unfortunate of course.

Even the class enum introduced in C++0x does not address this extensibility issue (though they do some things for type safety at least).

The only advantage of enum is that they do not exist: they offer some type safety while not imposing any runtime overhead as they are substituted by the compiler directly.

If you want such a beast, you'll have to work yourself:

• create a class MyEnum, that contains an int (basically)
• create named constructors for each of the interesting values

you may now extend your class (adding named constructors) at will...

That's a workaround though, I have never found a satistifying way of dealing with an enumeration...

I've solved in this way:

typedef enum
{
#include "NetProtocols.def"
} eNetProtocols, eNP;

Of course, if you add a new net protocol in the NetProtocols.def file, you have to recompile, but at least it's expandable.

"NetProtocols.def" will contain only the field names:

HTTP,
HTTPS,
FTP

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/InheritEnum.aspx goes over a method to created an expanded enum.

Create InheritEnum.h:

// -- InheritEnum.h


template <typename EnumT, typename BaseEnumT>
class InheritEnum
{
public:
InheritEnum() {}
InheritEnum(EnumT e)
: enum_(e)
{}


InheritEnum(BaseEnumT e)
: baseEnum_(e)
{}


explicit InheritEnum( int val )
: enum_(static_cast<EnumT>(val))
{}


operator EnumT() const { return enum_; }
private:
// Note - the value is declared as a union mainly for as a debugging aid. If
// the union is undesired and you have other methods of debugging, change it
// to either of EnumT and do a cast for the constructor that accepts BaseEnumT.
union
{
EnumT enum_;
BaseEnumT baseEnum_;
};
};

And then to use:

enum Fruit { Orange, Mango, Banana };
enum NewFruits { Apple, Pear };
typedef InheritEnum< NewFruit, Fruit > MyFruit;


void consume(MyFruit myfruit);

YMMV.

Just an idea:

You could try to create an empty class for each constant (maybe put them all in the same file to reduce clutter), create one instance of each class and use the pointers to these instances as the "constants". That way, the compiler will understand inheritance and will perform any ChildPointer-to-ParentPointer conversion necessary when using function calls, AND you still get type-safety checks by the compiler to ensure no one passes an invalid int value to functions (which would have to be used if you use the LAST value method to "extend" the enum).

Haven't fully thought this through though so any comments on this approach are welcome.

And I'll try to post an example of what I mean as soon as I have some time.

A simple, but useful workaround for this c++ gap could be as follows:

#define ENUM_BASE_VALS A,B,C
enum Enum {ENUM_BASE_VALS};
enum EnumEx {ENUM_BASE_VALS, D,E,F};

I had this problem in some projects that ran on small hardware devices I design. There is a common project that holds a number of services. Some of these services use enums as parameters to get additional type checking and safety. I needed to be able to extend these enums in the projects that use these services.

As other people have mentioned c++ doesn't allow you to extend enums. You can however emulate enums using a namespace and a template that has all the benefits of enum class.

enum class has the following benefits:

1. Converts to a known integer type.
2. Is a value type
3. Is constexpr by default and takes up no valuable RAM on small processors
4. Is scoped and accessible by enum::value
5. Works in case statements
6. Provides type safety when used as a parameter and needs to be explicitly cast

Now if you define a class as an enum you can't create constexpr instances of the enum in the class declaration, because the class is not yet complete and it leads to a compile error. Also even if this worked you could not extend the value set of enums easily later in another file/sub project .

Now namespaces have no such problem but they don't provide type safety.

The answer is to first create a templated base class which allows enums of different base sizes so we don't waste what we don't use.

template <typename TYPE>
class EnumClass {
private:
TYPE value_;
public:
explicit constexpr EnumClass(TYPE value) :
value_(value){
}
constexpr EnumClass() = default;
~EnumClass() = default;
constexpr explicit EnumClass(const EnumClass &) = default;
constexpr EnumClass &operator=(const EnumClass &) = default;


constexpr operator TYPE() const {return    value_;}
constexpr TYPE value() const {return value_;}


};

Then for each enum class we want to extend and emulate we create a namespace and a Type like this:

namespace EnumName {
class Type :public Enum<uint8_t> {
public:
explicit constexpr Type(uint8_t value): Enum<uint8_t>(value){}
constexpr Enum() = default;
}
constexpr auto Value1 = Type(1);
constexpr auto Value2 = Type(2);
constexpr auto Value3 = Type(3);
}

Then later in your code if you have included the original EnumName you can do this:

   namespace EnumName {
constexpr auto Value4 = Type(4U);
constexpr auto Value5 = Type(5U);
constexpr auto Value6 = Type(6U);


constexpr std::array<Type, 6U> Set = {Value1, Value2, Value3, Value4, Value5, Value6};
}

now you can use the Enum like this:

#include <iostream>


void fn(EnumName::Type val){
if( val != EnumName::Value1 ){
std::cout << val;
}
}


int main(){
for( auto e :EnumName::Set){
switch(e){
case EnumName::Value1:
std::cout << "a";
break;
case EnumName::Value4:
std::cout << "b";
break;
default:
fn(e);
}
}
}

So we have a case statement, enum comparisons, parameter type safety and its all extensible. Note the set is constexpr and wont end up using valuable RAM on a small micro (placement verified on Godbolt.org. :-). As a bonus we have the ability to iterate over a set of enum values.

Actually you can extend enums in a round about way.

The C++ standard defines the valid enum values to be all the valid values of the underlying type so the following is valid C++ (11+). Its not Undefined Behaviour, but it is very nasty - you have been warned.

#include <cstdint>


enum Test1:unit8_t {
Value1 =0,
Value2 =1
};


constexpr auto Value3 = static_cast<Test1>(3);
constexpr auto Value4 = static_cast<Test1>(4);
constexpr auto Value5 = static_cast<Test1>(5);




Test1 fn(Test1 val){
switch(val){
case Value1:
case Value2:
case Value3:
case Value4:
return Value1;
case Value5:
return Value5;
}
}


int main(){
return static_cast<uint8_t>(fn(Value5));
}

Note that most of the compilers don't consider the additional values as part of the set for generating warnings about missing enums values in switch statements.So clang and gcc will warn if Value2 is missing but will do nothing if Value4 is missing in the above switch statement.

I do this

enum OPC_t // frame Operation Codes
{
OPC_CVSND = 0 // Send CV value
, OPC_CVREQ = 1 // Request CV (only valid for master app)
, OPC_COMND = 2 // Command
, OPC_HRTBT = 3 // Heart Beat
};
enum rxStatus_t     // this extends OPC_t
{
RX_CVSND = OPC_CVSND  // Send CV value
, RX_CVREQ = OPC_CVREQ  // Request CV
, RX_COMND = OPC_COMND  // Command
, RX_HRTBT = OPC_HRTBT  // Heart Beat
, RX_NONE       // No new Rx
, RX_NEWCHIP        // new chip detected
};

One might try this :)

struct EnumType
{
enum
{
None = 0,
Value_1 = 1,
Value_2 = 2,
Value_3 = 3
};


//For when using the EnumType as a variable type
int Value { None };
};


struct EnumTypeEx : EnumType
{
enum
{
ExValue_1 = 3,
ExValue_2 = 4,
            

//override the value of Value_3
Value_3 = 3000
};
};

Pros:

• Class like extensibility
• Can override base labels value

Cons:

• Tedious to write
• You have to explicitly set the value for each label(*)

(*) you can start the auto value increment from the last base value by just writing it explicitly eg. ExValue_Start = LastBaseValue.

My approach slightly differs from that chosen by Marco.

I have added a macro as the last value of the enum I want to extend. In a separate header, I have defined that macro with the enum entries I want to add.

// error.h
#ifndef __APP_DEFINED__
#define __APP_DEFINED__
#endif
typedef enum { a, b, c, __APP_DEFINED__ } Error;

To add more values, I have created

// app_error.h
#define __APP_DEFINED__ d, e, f,

Lastly, I have added -include app_error.h to the compiler flags.

I prefer this approach compared to placing an #include "app_error.h" directive within the enum, mainly because I need the freedom not to have the "app_error.h" file at all in some projects.