🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5701@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@lupine.ncd.com (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>Sometimes though, it would be nice to be able to do something like this,
>e.g. when you want to have one type which refers to a whole big range
>of enumerator values, and yet another type which represents some "subrange"
>of the larger range of enumerator values.

[ deleted ]

>So I was thinking... this sounds like a job for ... ta da!  Inheritance!
>
>Does anybody (other than me) think that this might be a good idea?
>
>After all, in C++ we *do* now have strict type checking for enum types,
>however we *don't* have anything like Pascal subranges.

I have wanted something like this for some time.
It would be nice to have the derived enumerator's first indentifier
automagicly be one more than the last identifier of it's base.

I think that I could have made use of such a thing had it existed.

----------
richard~