[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as

[Nick Coghlan]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:02:31 +0100
> Stefan Krah <stefan at bytereef.org> wrote:
>> eli.bendersky <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
>> > +Ordered comparisons between enumeration values are *not* supported.  Enums are
>> > +not integers!
>>
>> Hmm. I think this limits interoperation with C libraries and prototyping
>> C code.
>
> Agreed, this is a deal-breaker IMO. I'd actually argue that enums are
> not terribly useful apart from interacting with C constants.

I've argued in the past that we should have a "Named Value" mechanism
*before* we have a proposal to group named constants in some fashion
(such as sequential enums, or binary flag groups). It never gained
much traction, even though it could be more useful in many cases
(think things like being able to tag a file descriptor with the repr
of the object it belongs to)

After seeing this checkin, I also suggested to Eli and Barry that any
new PEP on this topic should come with a survey of *existing*
pseudo-enums in the standard library, and an explanation of how the
proposal can be used to make those either easier to debug when they
show up in error messages or otherwise make it easier to detect when
you've made a mistake while working with them.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia