Actually, the first thing that I thought when I read EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED was “not used today, but tomorrow will be used for the book's cover” :)
It definitely needs a renaming! --madmurphy On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:52 PM madmurphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course, the value of EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED would be even better > (zero would be the natural value for something like this). > > But then it's a lexical problem. If I see something marked as “reserved” I > read “do not ever try to use this label”. > > Since already libextractor uses EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED with the > meaning of EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE, would it not make sense to rename > EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED to EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE and tell the user > that there is nothing “reserved” about it? > > By instinct if I see a label named EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED I might > think that there are cases in which libextractor marks a metatype with > EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_RESERVED, expecting me to treat is as an opaque label. > Instead, EXTRACTOR_METATYPE_NONE to be usable requires libextractor never > to mark anything publicly with it (or throw it as a return value). Since > apparently this is the case, a comment similar to the one I had left in the > patch would also be useful (“used by libextractor only internally; > available to the user for marking an enum EXTRACTOR_MetaType as not > carrying any meaningful value”). > > --madmurphy >
