Re: [Texmacs-dev] enums patch

[Stéphane Payrard]

On (12/09/02 18:09), Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> From: Stéphane Payrard <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] enums patch
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:09:47 -0400
> 
> On (12/09/02 16:16), Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> > From: Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden>
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] enums patch
> > Reply-To: address@hidden
> > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:16:17 +0200 (MET DST)
> > 
> > 
> > > I will probably rewrite it better and send it tomorrow.  Let me say
> > > that symbolic defined in enums are follow no consistant convention and
> > > that all upper case suck big time.  I can fix it with a Perl script.
> > > Similar remarks for class names.
> > 
> > I have been looking to the patch in more detail.
> > I am not sure that it would really be a good thing to apply it,
> > because many of the #define's are really definitions of constants
> > or masks and *not* new litterals in some new enumeration class.
> > In fact the latter case only occurs a few times and
> > I am not sure about making a specific modification for this.
> > 
> 
> I don't remember anything against using enums for a set of masks over
> a given integer even if I cannot find an example of this out of hand
> in the litterature.  

This seems indeed a well accepted usage.
See for example qdir.h in the Qt header.

    enum FilterSpec { Dirs          = 0x001,
                      Files         = 0x002,
                      Drives        = 0x004,
                      NoSymLinks    = 0x008,
                      All           = 0x007,
                       TypeMask     = 0x00F,

     ...
     };


The Gnu header don't do that because they pprobably want to
be K&R compatible but we don't want that.



> 
> --
>   stef
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev