Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 992571
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T06:17:22+00:00 2026-05-16T06:17:22+00:00

I have an enumerated type, StackID , and I am using the enumeration to

  • 0

I have an enumerated type, StackID, and I am using the enumeration to refer to an index of a particular vector and it makes my code easier to read.

However, I now have the need to create a variable called nextAvail of type StackID (it actually refers to a particular stackID ). I tried to increment it, but in C++ the following is illegal:

nextAvail++;

Which sort of makes sense to me … because there isn’t any bounds checking.

I’m probably overlooking something obvious, but what’s a good substitute?


I also want to link to this question.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T06:17:22+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 6:17 am

    I’m probably overlooking something obvious, but what’s a good substitute?

    Overloading operator++:

    // Beware, brain-compiled code ahead! 
    StackID& operator++(StackID& stackID)
    {
    #if MY_ENUMS_ARE_CONTIGUOUS && I_DO_NOT_WORRY_ABOUT_OVERFLOW
      return stackID = static_cast<StackID>( ++static_cast<int>(stackID) );
    #else
      switch(stackID) {
        case value1 : return stackID = value2;
        case value2 : return stackID = value3;
        ...
        case valueN : return stackID = value1;
      }
      assert(false);
      return stackID; // some compilers might warn otherwise
    #endif
    }
    
    StackID operator++(StackID& stackID, int)
    {
      StackID tmp(stackID);
      ++stackID;
      return tmp;
    }
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.