Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: > If the only possible values are 0 and 1, I can either add assertions > to check that at run time, or make the compiler check it for us by > confining its value to a single bit. A compile-time check seems more > robust...
Sure, as long as they can catch assignments (e.g. ".field = 2", or more interestingly ".field = .field + 1" in a loop, etc.) and increments or decrements and flag them. > But the fact that you flagged the struct change -- would you prefer > some commit message explanation of how it's related, or was it more > the case that you felt it was a different kind of change and wanted it > split out into a separate patch? I'm suspecting the former but am not > quite sure. I do not see it as related at all, so either split it out into a separate patch, or just drop it (and have a runtime check as everybody else in this step), would be the sensible alternatives. I think the latter is easier to reason about but it may be just me.
