That could work, but what happens when the user doesn't want indexing, ie, indexed = false? I guess the IndexOptions argument could be ignored if no indexing is taking place, but then we are forcing the user to enter a dummy parameter.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Chris Male <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
