"ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> the enum value of `ATOM_UNKNOWN` is equals to zero, which
s/the/The/;
> could ensure that we can easily distinguish such a struct
> where the atom_type is known from such a struct where it
> is unknown yet.
>
> the enum value of `ATOM_INVALID` is equals to the size of
Ditto.
> +/*
> + * The enum atom_type is used as the coordinates of valid_atom entry.
> + * In the atom parsing stage, it will be passed to used_atom.atom_type
> + * as the identifier of the atom type. We can judge the type of used_atom
> + * entry by `if (used_atom[i].atom_type == ATOM_*)`.
> + *
> + * ATOM_UNKNOWN equals to 0, used as an enumeration value of uninitialized
> + * atom_type.
Shouldn't it be (-1)?
And I'd assume I am right in the following.
> + * ATOM_INVALID equals to the size of valid_atom array, which could help us
> + * iterate over valid_atom array like this:
> + *
> + * for (i = ATOM_UNKNOWN + 1; i < ATOM_INVALID; i++) {
I find it far more intuitive to say
for (i = 0; i < ATOM_INVALID; i++)
than having to say UNKNOWN+1.
In any case, the values should be indented, and a comment should
ensure that the final one stays at the end, perhaps like this.
enum atom_type {
ATOM_INVALID = -2,
ATOM_UNKNOWN = -1,
ATOM_REFNAME,
...
ATOM_ELSE,
ATOM_MAX /* MUST BE AT THE END */
}
(note that the trailing comma is deliberately omitted).
It would allow people to say
for (i = 0; i < ATOM_MAX; i++)
instead, which would be even nicer.
