On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:08 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 11:51 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > wow, that came out totally wrong... > > > > using a single bit allows us to extend the structure with more bitfields > > w/o breaking ABI if we find we need to. > > > > it's akin to having: > > > > unsigned int sync_offline:1; > > unsigned int unused:31; > > I'm just curious, but what's the advantage of bitfields over just having > an integer field called "flags" and defining the individual flags as > enum values? The latter approach has all the advantages that Jeff > enumerated, but it also allows you to work with groups of flags at once > (e.g. masking, copying, etc.). Perhaps that's not relevant for this > particular case?
As far as I see it there is no difference/advantage at all. It is just a matter of personal coding style if you prefer to handle bit fields instead of bit flags. I would have preferred a bit flags, but who am I to criticize the style of another coder if there is no factual advantage of choosing one style over the other? Best regards, jules _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers