Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > +static struct {
>> > + enum { none, regexp } mode;
>>
>> We often use the same identifier for a struct and an instance of the
>> struct, taking advantage of the fact that they live in separate
>> namespaces, but lowercase enumerated values like 'regexp' that
>> collides with the field name (and possibly a variable name used
>> elsewhere) smells a bit too much.
>
> Ok, thanks for sanity-checking.
>
>> > + regex_t *regexp;
>> > + int do_not_match; /* used with `regexp` */
>> > +} cmd_line_value;
I _might_ want to take this back. A pattern that uses the "mode" to
switch among the possibilities in a union, i.e.
struct {
enum {
<something>_none,
<something>_regexp,
<something>_bool,
<something>_int,
} mode;
union {
<type-used-when-it-is-regexp> regexp;
<type-used-when-it-is-bool> bool;
<type-used-when-it-is-int> int;
} u;
};
may not be too bad. So I do not strongly mind the lowercase.
But I still do mind an overly bland names for identifiers in an
enum, as enum is not quite a type on its own ('regexp' in one enum
may collide with the same identifier in another enum)..
Thanks.
