IDL 4.3 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

IDL43 — bitmask/bitvalue scoping

  • Key: IDL43-77
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Remedy IT Expertise BV ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    The spec doesn't say anything about bitmask bit_value scoping. I think the spec currently allows

    bitmask MyBitMask

    { flag0, flag1 };
    bitmask MyBitMask2 { flag0, flag1 }


    This is problematic when a bitmask maps to an enum in C++. As a bitmask is pretty similar to an enum I do ask the following, in section 7.5.2 it says:

    Enumeration value names are introduced into the enclosing scope and then are treated like any other declaration in that scope.

    What about a bitvalue, shouldn't this also be done for a bitvalue (the members of a bitmask), that would allow a safe mapping to an enum in C++.

    The spec should be clear about where bitmasks are introduced, within the bitmask scope itself, or in the enclosing scope

  • Reported: IDL 4.2 — Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:31 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:18 GMT