On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 7:05 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I proposed both options because a distinct typename lets me jump to > > the definition of the flags easily through ctags. > > I'm not sure I understand you here. I use ctags (via Emacs) and it's "I proposed both options" (ie. enum or typedef) , so we are in resounding agreement. > > 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. > > Yes, enums or not, what I was also pointing out in > https://lore.kernel.org/git/220201.86ilty9vq2.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > is that changing just one logical set of flags at a time would make this > much easier to review. > > It doesn't matter for the end result as long as we end up with "unsigned > int" everywhere, but would with enums. Not sure if you need to review it in that detail. If you change a definition in the .h file, the compiler will complain about all mismatches. So it doesn't need human verification once you know it compiles. -- 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
