Style question regarding Homework day 2-3

Hi there!

First of all, thank you Per for Bitwise, it is an amazing project to follow and I learned a lot already. Keep up the good work!

I have a style-related question.
While creating my solution for day 2-3, I found that I have a lot of enum redundancy (especially for operators) between type.

// In the lexer, I have an enum for every token possible, operator included
typedef enum TokenType {
    TOKENTYPE_ADD,
    TOKENTYPE_MIN,
    TOKENTYPE_MUL,
    //... you get the point
} TokenType;

//In my expression parser, I have a very similar structure for Operator Expression
typedef enum OpExprType {
    OPEXPRTYPE_ADD,
    OPEXPRTYPE_MIN,
    OPEXPRTYPE_MUL,
    //...
} OpExprType;

I almost have a direct mapping between TokenType and OpExprType and it feels really redundant. It's not the first time I find this kind of structure, I was wondering if it is just the way it is, or if there are some technique to simplify that.

Thank you for you time!

#define basicReplace(NAME)\ NAME_ADD, \ NAME_MIN, \ ..., \ NAME_LASTSHAREDTOKEN, \ .... .... typedef enum TokenType { basicReplace(TOKENTYPE) TOKENTYPE_NOTSHARED //... you get the point } TokenType; typedef enum OpExprType { basicReplace(OPEXPRTYPE), OPEXPRTYPE_SPECIAL, OPEXPRTYPE_3242, //... } OpExprType;