On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes: > > > > >> > Also, I have a slight preference for putting "= 02" on the BLAME_COPY > > >> > line but that is not necessary. > > >> > > >> That is absolutely necessary; it is not like "we do not care what > > >> exact value _COPY gets; it can be any value as long as it is _MOVE > > >> plus 1", as these are used in set of bits (and again, I do not think > > >> it is such a brilliant idea to use enum for such a purpose). > > > > > > Good point. > > > > Doesn't that also show that enums are not quite a good fit for set > > of bits (i.e. 1<<n)? > > Well, I agree that it could be better, but with the C language as we > have it now, I still slightly prefer an enum to a list of #define. Both > ways, we still have to manually enter values for each flag, but with > enum, we get better debugger display (at least in gdb) and in the > function declaration and definition, we can put a specific type (instead > of "unsigned" or "int"). gdb supports the notion that a few people use > enums this way too, but if we decide as a project to not use enums in > this way, that's fine too. For what it's worth, I tried doing a search > online, but most of the results I got was for C# (where it is > recommended - they have a "[Flags]" attribute for enums), so maybe I am > indeed in the minority.
I'll try to pick another set of constants to convert - before this is agreed on. Thanks, wambui karuga
