> OK so possible solutions are: > > 1. rotate_arg_90 > 2. rotate_enum_90 > 3. ROTATE_90 > > any preferences?
Yes, 1 or 2. I really don't like uppercase because it is usually "reserved" for (preprocessor) macros. > Actually the proposal of Gyozo, rotate_<value> might fail (though > rarely) for the reasons exposed by David OK, I don't mind it was just an idea to move from the original simple enum prefixes. > generated code is going; if you take a look at the current version in > CVS you'll see lots of usage of void pointers, unions and switch > statements (with corresponding casts) to deal with different types... > this is why I love C++'s polymorphism and really don't like C ;-) OK, I'll check it if I have a little time. Last when I was dealing with gengetopt's source refactoring I had a feeling that using type-specific callbacks may be a good approach. I mean different callbacks for options of type integer, floats and string. But now I don't know how far you have got in refactoring. _______________________________________________ Help-gengetopt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gengetopt
