Dead Simple Java IO & Enum Question

I know there is something dead simple I'm missing, but the following code won't write the text using println:

import java.io.*;   
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;

public class ConfigureSettings{   
    private PrintWriter SettingsFile;   
    private enum Dodge{   
        Ascending, Descending, Off  
    };   
    private enum Damage{   
        Ascending, Descending, Off   
    };   
    private enum DPS{   
        Ascending, Descending, Off   
    };   

    ConfigureSettings(){
        try{
            SettingsFile = new PrintWriter(new File("UserSettings"));
        }
        catch(IOException e){
            JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Sorry cannot open UserSettings File");
        }
        SettingsFile.println("k");
        JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Done");
    }

    public static void main(String args[]){
        new Con开发者_如何学编程figureSettings();
    }
}

My Enumeration question is can I create an Enumeration of Enumeration's? I mean can I wrap the three current enum variables I have, Dodge Damage and DPS, in Super enum class?

P.S. I know my code isn't displaying correctly, any hints for future posts/edits?

Concerning the missing println output: Have you tried flushing the PrintWriter after println, and explicitly closeing it when you no longer need it?

As to your enum of enums question — what would an enum of enums be good for? Do you mean something like this (which I just made up — I'm quite sure it won't compile):

private enum Enumenum {
    enum Dodge {
        Ascending, Descending, Off
    },
    enum Damage {
    Ascending, Descending, Off
    },
    enum DPS {
        Ascending, Descending, Off
    }
}

What would you do with such a complicated enum? Why not simply:

    enum OneForAll {
        Ascending, Descending, Off
    }

And then use this enum instead of the other three, since they all contain the same enumeration values anyway?

(Update: Note however that using the same enum instead of three separate enums might very well reduce the type safety of your code, so the above suggestion might not necessarily be a good thing.)