Re: Question about enum values

[Jeff Dillon]

So, let's say, like what you said, we have this:

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
8, 1000, CanCancel

or

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
4, 0100, CanCancel

In the first case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 1011 and CanOpen |
CanProcess gives us 0011

In the second case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 0111, and CanOpen
| CanProcess gives us 0011

Of course, in the second case, None | CanComplete and CanOpen |
CanProcess will give us the same result: 0011

>>You have 3 in your top example and is why it's failing. It's 4, not 3.

[Author]

On Sep 29, 12:41*pm, "Jeff Dillon" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

So, let's say, like what you said, we have this:

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
8, 1000, CanCancel

or

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
4, 0100, CanCancel

In the first case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 1011 and CanOpen |
CanProcess gives us 0011

In the second case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 0111, and CanOpen
| CanProcess gives us 0011

Of course, in the second case, None | CanComplete and CanOpen |
CanProcess will give us the same result: 0011

>You have 3 in your top example and is why it's failing. It's 4, not 3.

Yeah, I know Scott Allen's original (i.e., CanComplete = 4 instead of
3) would work like Jeroen said.

But, Jeroen says:

<quote>
If "CanComplete" was defined as 3, it would look the same as CanOpen |
CanProcess.
</quote>

So, I don't know if he wants CanCancel to be 4 or 8. That's why I had
two cases, 0, 1, 2, 3, 8 and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. I did not need to test 0,
1, 2, 4, 8, which I know how it works after Jeroen's explanation.

[Jeroen Mostert]

Author wrote:

On Sep 29, 12:41 pm, "Jeff Dillon" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>So, let's say, like what you said, we have this:

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
8, 1000, CanCancel

or

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
4, 0100, CanCancel

In the first case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 1011 and CanOpen |
CanProcess gives us 0011

In the second case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 0111, and CanOpen
| CanProcess gives us 0011

Of course, in the second case, None | CanComplete and CanOpen |
CanProcess will give us the same result: 0011

>>You have 3 in your top example and is why it's failing. It's 4, not 3.

Yeah, I know Scott Allen's original (i.e., CanComplete = 4 instead of
3) would work like Jeroen said.

But, Jeroen says:

<quote>
If "CanComplete" was defined as 3, it would look the same as CanOpen |
CanProcess.
</quote>

So, I don't know if he wants CanCancel to be 4 or 8.

I... really don't want it to be anything. Pretend it doesn't exist. It's
orthogonal to my point. If the flags are already incorrect it doesn't matter
how you continue.

That's why I had
two cases, 0, 1, 2, 3, 8 and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. I did not need to test 0,
1, 2, 4, 8, which I know how it works after Jeroen's explanation.

Yes, let's focus on that and forget the rest. 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 etcetera is the
only correct progression for bitflags.

--
J.

[Author]

On Sep 29, 12:57*pm, Jeroen Mostert <[e-mail]:

Author wrote:

On Sep 29, 12:41 pm, "Jeff Dillon" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

So, let's say, like what you said, we have this:

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
8, 1000, CanCancel

or

0, 0000, None
1, 0001, CanOpen
2, 0010, CanProcess
3, 0011, CanComplete
4, 0100, CanCancel

In the first case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 1011 and CanOpen |
CanProcess gives us 0011

In the second case, CanComplete | CanCancel gives us 0111, and CanOpen
| CanProcess gives us 0011

Of course, in the second case, None | CanComplete and CanOpen |
CanProcess will give us the same result: 0011

>You have 3 in your top example and is why it's failing. It's 4, not 3..

Yeah, I know Scott Allen's original (i.e., CanComplete = 4 instead of
3) would work like Jeroen said.

But, Jeroen says:

<quote>
If "CanComplete" was defined as 3, it would look the same as CanOpen |
CanProcess.
</quote>

So, I don't know if he wants CanCancel to be 4 or 8.

I... really don't want it to be anything. Pretend it doesn't exist. It's
orthogonal to my point. If the flags are already incorrect it doesn't matter
how you continue.

That's why I had
two cases, 0, 1, 2, 3, 8 and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. *I did not need to test 0,
1, 2, 4, 8, which I know how it works after Jeroen's explanation.

Yes, let's focus on that and forget the rest. 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 etcetera is the
only correct progression for bitflags.

--
J.

I understood, I was only testing how we get

OrderTransitions canCompleteAndCancel = OrderTransitions.CanComplete |
OrderTransitions.CanCancel;

should we assign 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 0, 1, 2, 3, 8.

I guess it is my turn to confuse you now. :-)

[Peter Webb]

I... really don't want it to be anything. Pretend it doesn't exist. It's
orthogonal to my point. If the flags are already incorrect it doesn't
matter how you continue.

I would have thought that the underlying vectors being orthogonal was your
point !