I really favour sticking to the existing enum and don't think we should unravel them into int flags for the reasons already put forward.
Having thought about my original concern, I think its best we don't make it an optional argument, we should force users to specify what IndexOptions they want explicitly. On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Adnan Duric <[email protected]> wrote: > We can pass an enum member individually (DOCS_ONLY, DOCS_AND_FREQS...) to > the ctor to prevent inconsistencies. This way we would have the same number > of extra arguments as splitting them, and no complex pair checking between > them. > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Simon Willnauer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Michael McCandless >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> We'd need checking in FT's ctor to catch wrong pairings, eg you cannot >> >> turn ont POSITIONS unless you also turn on FREQS, and at least DOCS >> >> must be set if INDEXED is set. >> >> >> > >> > What is the problem with the enum? it prevents these inconsistencies... >> +1 to stick to enums here! >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > lucidimagination.com >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > -- Chris Male | Software Developer | DutchWorks | www.dutchworks.nl
