Possible stupid switch statement q

General JUCE discussion
1

Hey All,

I have a possibly silly switch-statement q:

Why doesn’t something like this work:

bool MyComponent::keyPressed(const KeyPress& key) {
	switch (key.getKeyCode()) {
		case KeyPress::deleteKey:

The compiler complains like this:
error: ‘juce::KeyPress::deleteKey’ cannot appear in a constant-expression

Using gcc 4 in OS X 10.5

I thought that juce::KeyPress::deleteKey was const, and therefore kosher…

Anyways, clarification would be nice. I come from Java, so some of the C++ arcana is still a bit mysterious to me.

thanks,

c.

2

try.

if(key.isKeyCode(KeyPress::deleteKey)) { //deleteKey stuff... } else if(key.isKeyCode(KeyPress::escapeKey)) { //escapeKey stuff... } else if(key.isKeyCode(KeyPress::backspaceKey)) { //backspaceKey stuff... }

3

yes yes, that works, but that is no fun. god invented switch statements for a reason :slight_smile:

i really want to know why the switch won’t work… not minding that it is actually more efficient, but it also seems like less typing…

c.

4

It’s because the initializer is in the declaration, not the definition, it doesn’t qualify as a constant integral expression.

If it was like this, it would work:

class Foo
{
public:
static const int a = 1;
static const int b = 2;
static const int c = 3;
};

int main()
{
int v = 2;
switch (v)
{
case Foo::a: break;
case Foo::b: break;
case Foo::c: break;
}
}

const int Foo::a;
const int Foo::b;
const int Foo::c;

But since it is like this, it doesn’t:

class Foo
{
public:
static const int a;
static const int b;
static const int c;
};

int main()
{
int v = 2;
switch (v)
{
case Foo::a: break;
case Foo::b: break;
case Foo::c: break;
}
}

const int Foo::a = 1;
const int Foo::b = 2;
const int Foo::c = 3;
5

ah, thanks. That is good to know.

c.