NH> I've been rolling C++ "enum"s around in my head and have come up with
 NH> a question.  Given the following code snippet:
 NH> class button
 NH> {
 NH>     public:
 NH>         enum status (out, in);
enum status {out, in};  // :-)
 NH>         void set(status s) {state = s;}
 NH>         status get() const {return state;}
 NH>     private:
 NH>         status state
 NH> };
 NH> int main()
 NH> {
 NH>     const button::status out = button::out;  // #1
 NH>     const button::status in  = button::in;   // #2
 NH>     button panic;
 NH>     panic.set(out);
panic.set(button::out);
panic.set(panic.out); // ?  Can't recall... maybe this is object pascal...
 NH>     [some other stuff]
 NH> }
 NH> Had the line
 NH> button panic;
 NH> been declared first in main(), could the verbiage in the line marked
 NH> #1 above have been written:
 NH> const panic.status out = button::out;   ????
Nope.  Its type is button::out.  It might be able to be panic::out, but I 
can't recall right now.  :-/  Try it!  :-)
 NH> I _think_ the question can be rephrased as "why must enums be always
 NH> kept separate, apart from the objects to which they can apply?"
I'm unsure of the question.  Perhaps someone else will understand and answer, 
otherwise try rewording it.  A list of my vocabulary... (Sorry, too many of 
those text-adventure games )
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------