On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:57:24PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Christophe Fergeau > <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would have kept HINT_HIDE as the flag name as it's more > > expressive than _READY imo. Looks good either way. > > "HIDE" isn't necessarily 0 anymore, there will be a DISABLED flag in a > following patch. Now that you say it, it could have been "ENABLED" > flag instead, so 0 would still map to !READY && !ENABLED, but I prefer > to DISABLED, since this is the exception, and we might had more flags > in the future, making 0 hard to keep meaningful perhaps. Yes, that's what I meant. At this point in the series, there is no DISABLED flag, so I just assume that other flags will have totally different meanings that are unrelated to showing/hiding the window, so they could be set while we want to hide the window, or things like that. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpMA4Xyo5aIo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
