Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> My questions:
>
> * am I the only one who struggles with the different flavor of `flags` ?
Probably no.
> * if no, what should be done about this? Maybe
>
> typedef unsigned int ref_flags;
> #define REF_IS_SYMREF 0x1
> char *refs_resolve_ref_unsafe(const char *refname, ref_flags *flags, ... );
>
> or
>
> typedef enum ref_flags {
> REF_IS_SYMREF = 0x1,
> };
> char *refs_resolve_ref_unsafe(const char *refname, enum ref_flags
> *flags, ... );
It is very good to use symbolic constants implemented either as C
preprocessor macros or enums, I would think.
However, I am not enthused to see typedefs; I've never seen multiple
typedefs of the same integral type did anything useful in C. Perhaps
things are different in the C++ land, but we do not live there.
> A somewhat related gripe is that some code uses `int flags` and other
> code uses `unsigned flags`. It would be great to standardize this.
I agree. Unless there is very compelling reason to single out the
topmost bit and treat it as special, a set of flag bits should be
"unsigned".
