I've invented a printable enum, based on the Boost preprocessor programming lib. But although the printable enum works, I think my efforts revealed a bug in Boost. The BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM preprocessor macro doesn't work with the empty "false" result of BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF. This has forced me to do hacks like this: #define ENUM(name, start, entries)\ BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM( \ BOOST_PP_IIF(ENUMS, \ (typedef enum{ BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(entries) = start) \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(entries) \ (LAST_##name } name;) \ , \ (static void PP_NILFUNC();) \ ) \ ) As you can see in the above definition, I've included an explicit "false" clause for BOOST_PP_IIF() that expands into the harmless (and utterly superfluous) expression "static void PP_NILFUNC();". I would instead have preferred to use BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF and thus avoid the eye-sore. But the hack was necessary, as I said before, because BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM does not elogantly handle the empty "false" result of BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF. Can this be fixed? -Brent