On 10/10/14, 11:42 AM, "Anirban Chakraborty" <abchak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On 10/10/14, 11:13 AM, "Eric Blake" <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On 10/10/2014 10:59 AM, Anirban Chakraborty wrote: >> >>> The list is really very long to put all in here. If we have to do what >>>you >>> suggested, then we¹d be changing all such usage of switch statements, >>> which is not trivial, I believe. >> >>The point of adding it to HACKING is to encourage new code to abide by >>the standard, and not necessarily to retrofit existing code. And you >>are correct that existing code doesn't always use enum type-safety >>compiler guarantees - which makes the enum that much harder to modify >>later if we ever add enum values. But in some cases, it is fairly >>obvious that we don't plan to add any enum values, in which case a >>simple if statement or use of a default label is fine. It's a >>case-by-case judgment call of what makes the code easier to maintain. > > >So, you are proposing not to touch the existing code but do it for all new >code addition. I do not have any problem with that, except for the fact >that this would bloat new code, which is equally important, IMHO. Should >we bloat code to future proof coding error? If other folks think yes we >should (in the context of this code), then I¹d be more than happy to swap >the Œdefault¹ case with rest of the types of virDomainNetType. > >Anirban Never mind, I’ll change the patch to include what you suggested. It has come to a point that there is little technical value on either side of the argument. Anirban -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list