Adds a unit test, and some smaller edits:
- Remove the `=` when defining names, in order to change `}` placement
by clang-format on uses.
- context:
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/6053#discussion_r2343423178
- I believe with `EnumBase` that keeping the `=` had been a deliberate
choice, so this PR is intended to confirm that removing it is okay.
- Delete `EnumMaskBase::name`
- context:
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/6053#discussion_r2344233707
- We can't just do nothing because `EnumBase::name` uses indexing that's
incompatible with `EnumMaskBase`.
- Some small comment cleanups.
- Tests don't need to be in the `Carbon` namespace anymore, macros work
fine in other namespaces, but it's still the right namespace.
- Documentation on `EnumBase::name` seems to be referring to a prior
structure, wherein we had a macro defining the function instead of the
`Names` array.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This is a bit of an experiment to see if there's a reasonable way to
write a shared enum type, rather than writing per-case wrappers for
things like `HasTypeQualifiers` or the printing. I think it's a bit
borderline complexity right now, but I'm not sure I can reduce it much
further.
This changes from things like `Internal::EnumClassName##RawEnum` to
`Internal::EnumClassName##Data::RawEnum` so that the enum entries can
have back references to bit shifts without needing to know the
containing type name. Because I'm trying to reduce duplication between
mask and non-mask enums, I did this to non-mask enums too.
This was motivated by #6035 adding another enum mask (which will grow
more entries, and is intended to switch if this is accepted), but I'm
not using that PR as a base here because I didn't want the merge
dependency.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandRichard Smith