On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 13:47, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote: > No, you are missing the point. This is intentionally not using the enum > directly as the enum would be larger. Using C++11 sized enums on the > other hand created funny ABI changes. > >
Really, I'm not missing the point. There was no attempt in my patch to use C++11 sized enums (I just *said* that c++11 has a concept for controlling enum size. Also migrating to c++11 type safe enums would be API breaking, so of course I would not push this change). Eventually the change pushed by Matthew just changed signed -> unsigned for a private member, so ABI is not changing at all. _______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
