Mixing of .def() and value() on nb::enum_s?

[nicholasjng]

A quick observation while porting a pre-existing enum_ with an associated operator from pybind:

#include "nanobind/operators.h"
#include "nanobind/nanobind.h"

enum Flags {
  a = 0,
  b = 1 << 0,
  c = 1 << 1,
};

Flags inline operator|(const Flags& LHS, const Flags& RHS) {
  return static_cast<Flags>(static_cast<int>(LHS) | static_cast<int>(RHS));
}

NB_MODULE(hello, m) {
  nb::enum_<Flags>(m, "Flags")
      .value("a", Flags::a)
      .value("b", Flags::b)
      .value("c", Flags::c)
      .export_values()
      .def(nb::self | nb::self);  // <- error: member reference base type 'void' is not a structure or union
};

This does not compile with nanobind, because nb::enum_::export_values returns void, whereas in pybind11 it returns a reference to the enum.

nanobind/include/nanobind/nb_class.h

Line 467 in a7d8dc0

NB_INLINE void export_values() { detail::nb_enum_export(Base::m_ptr); }

Is this an intended break with pybind11, and if so, how could I define said operator on an nb::enum after exporting the values?

(PS: I found out about nb::is_arithmetic() while attempting to fix this , which would add that operator for me - but that returns the associated integer, while the custom operator would return an enum value, even if the resulting integer is not an existing value. My question is more about custom defs on enums in general.)

[wjakob]

This was unintended. Commit 714d17e changes the signature to be consistent with pybind11.

[nicholasjng]

Awesome, thank you!