blog:2023:08:26:2023-08-26_-_handling_enums_in_c [BaSzErr]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== 2023-08-26 - handling enums in C++ ======

handling ''enum''s in [[wp>C++]] is tricky. but there are good practices that can help you out. here are two from the set.

===== handling all values =====

let's say we have a simple ''enum'' called ''Foo'', with some values. we want to add a ''str()'' helper, that would covert it to sth more human-readable than a number. very common implementation would be:

<code cpp>
enum class Foo { A, B, C };

// ...

auto str(Foo f)
{
  switch(f)
  {
    case Foo::A: return "A";
    case Foo::B: return "B";
    case Foo::C: return "C";
    default: return "<unknown>";
  }
}
</code>

looks good, all tests pass. however there is a potential for a problem -- it's not future proof. let's now add ''Foo::D'':

<code cpp>
enum class Foo { A, B, C, D }; // notice Foo::D is added!

// ...

auto str(Foo f)
{
  switch(f)
  {
    case Foo::A: return "A";
    case Foo::B: return "B";
    case Foo::C: return "C";
    default: return "<unknown>";
  }
}
</code>

looks good, all tests pass... however now there _is_ a problem! new value is not handled and it will return an incorrect value at runtime!

there's a neat way of fixing this problem and making code future-proof. compile with ''-Wall -Werror'' (as you anyway should!) and make sure no ''switch'' has any ''default''. eg.:

<code cpp>
auto str(Foo f)
{
  switch(f)
  {
    case Foo::A: return "A";
    case Foo::B: return "B";
    case Foo::C: return "C";
  }
  return "<unknown>";
}
</code>

change looks insignificant, but now if we miss handling 1 value, we get a warning from a compiler and with ''-Werror'' it stops the build right away.

  c.cpp: In function ‘auto str(Foo)’:
  c.cpp:11:9: error: enumeration value ‘D’ not handled in switch [-Werror=switch]
     11 |   switch(f)
        |         ^
  cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors


bug is detected at compile time! nice... :)


===== handling some values =====

another common case where ''enum''s are used is adding special functions, that check if value is in a given logical state / group. eg. determining if it's an error:

<code cpp>
enum class State
{
  Initializing,
  Running,
  InputError
};

bool isOk(State s)
{
  return s != State::InputError;
}
</code>

looks good, all tests pass. however... you probably already know where it's going. ;) let's consider extending ''State'' with a new error state:


<code cpp>
enum class State
{
  Initializing,
  Running,
  InputError,
  OutputError
};
</code>

...and now ''isOk(State::OutputError) == true''. whoops...

a better way of writing these kind of function is to list all ''enum'' values explicitly, and assign ''return''s accordingly, eg.:

<code cpp>
#include <cassert>
// ...
bool isOk(State s)
{
  switch(s)
  {
    case State::Initializing:
    case State::Running:
      return true;
    case State::InputError:
      return false;
  }
  assert(!"unknown value");
}
</code>

now, if states change, we get a proper error:

  4.cpp: In function ‘bool isOk(State)’:
  4.cpp:13:9: error: enumeration value ‘OutputError’ not handled in switch [-Werror=switch]
     13 |   switch(s)
        |         ^
  cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors

so we know we need to fix it:

<code cpp>
#include <cassert>
// ...
bool isOk(State s)
{
  switch(s)
  {
    case State::Initializing:
    case State::Running:
      return true;
    case State::InputError:
    case State::OutputError:
      return false;
  }
  assert(!"unknown value");
}
</code>

while writing this kind of functions using ''switch''-''case'' may look a bit odd at first, it has a very nice property of ensuring code being future-proof. as a side effect, it also makes core far easier to read. for comparison just imagine ''isOk()'' where there are 7 "ok" states and 13 "error" states...
blog/2023/08/26/2023-08-26_-_handling_enums_in_c.txt · Last modified: 2023/08/26 15:50 by basz
Back to top