hunold@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Johannes Stezenbach writes:
> >On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 hunold@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >>enum dvb_demux_pid_filter_packet_selection {
> >> DVB_DEMUX_TS_PACKET = (1 << 0), /*!< default: process the
> >> whole TS packet */
> >> DVB_DEMUX_PAYLOAD_ONLY = (1 << 1), /*!< only deliver the payload
> >> (ie. strip off the TS header) */
> >> DVB_DEMUX_ADAPTATION_ONLY = (1 << 2), /*!< only deliver the TS
> >> header and any adaptation fields if present */
> >>};
>
> >If these enums aren't flags, then why the hell do you make them
> >look like flags?
>
> I don't want to make them look like flags. Flags can only be used for
> saying on/off. This is not true for the stuff above, they are selections.
Why then the (1 << x) assignments? That's misleading.
> What about putting *all* capabilities into a separate struct that can be
> queried at once instead of a lot small capabilities that need to be queried
> individually?
That makes it hard to extend the API without breaking
binary compatibility. (We could add some "reserved" fields
like the v4l2 API has, but it's ugly.)
Johannes
