On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:03 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The post-image LGTM, but I'm also a bit "meh" on the churn just for > > signed->unsigned, especially given the conflict with my in-flight > > ab/no-errno-from-resolve-ref-unsafe. But it's not too bad, and if Junio > > hasn't complained about it... > > I won't complain myself. I'd still try to help newer developers, > but my intention is to make it the responsibility for individual > developers to make sure their topic works well with topics in > flight ;-) I'm sending v3 based on seen. > Between "enum" and #define that is stored in "unsigned", neither > gives us much type safety in C; "enum" may be somewhat worse by > giving a false sense of having a type safety that does not really > exist, than "unsigned int" that is more honestly defeats such a > false sense of safety. So I have no strong preference either way. Neither gives true type safety, and I don't know if an enum is kosher at all; shouldn't the value always be one of the enumerees, strictly speaking? I proposed both options because a distinct typename lets me jump to the definition of the flags easily through ctags. Another idea is to mark the type of the flags by its name, eg. transaction_flags, resolve_flags, reftype_flags etc. This wouldn't help with ctags, but it does help with readability. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays. -- Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
