On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Attila Lendvai <att...@lendvai.name> wrote: > some projects out in the wild use DEFCENUM with e.g. :DOUBLE > base-type. this is not in adherence with the C standard (only integer > types are valid enum types, and it's at least int sized). my > refactoring of enums introduced an explicit check for this, and it > broke some projects in ql. to alleviate that i've commented out this > new check in master. > > the question: > > should we roll with this? does anyone see any problems or potentially > surprising behavior? e.g. with the semantics of the enum increments > and the double base type? or something else?
It sounds a bit silly at first, but from CFFI's point of view, a DEFCENUM is really just a mapping between symbols and... something else. What would we gain from being a bit more draconian about the base type? -- Luís Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/
