On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:51:17PM +0200, Edwin van den Oetelaar wrote: >> Why is this stored in a bitmask anyway? Now everything depends on >> #define INT_BITS >> would not a <vector> or simple array[] make more sense? > > A bit_vector, also. The issue is that there are lots of thing cabled on > the bitmask logic. At least if you look at my code these 'enum' *should* > be reasonably substituted with other 'things' (passed by value) without > too much work. > > Part of this is to enable creation of more technical layers (a looong > standing issue). > > In other words there enum are standoff for a future 'more suitable' data > structure. The patch is already big as it is, do not ask for too much in > one step XD
I could not ask this from anyone. (the oposite) If there is a fundamental reason, which would be very strange, for using bitmasks then let them be. If there is not a real reason, I will take a look if I can find the time to refactor them out when I have some days off. Have a happy day, Edwin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
