Re: [Evolution-hackers] Why a bitfield in CamelOfflineFolder?

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 11:51 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> wow, that came out totally wrong...

You can say that... ;-)


> using a single bit allows us to extend the structure with more bitfields
> w/o breaking ABI if we find we need to.
> 
> it's akin to having:
> 
> unsigned int sync_offline:1;
> unsigned int unused:31;

OK, that makes more sense.

Thanks,
  jules



> 
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 11:41 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > the idea is that we only need 1 bit as a boolean... if we declare it as
> > a boolean now, then later if we discover we need more state, then we
> > have to add a whole new boolean to avoid breaking ABI.
> > 
> > In this fashion, we have 31 more bits available to us :)
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:43 +0100, Jules Colding wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Is this really necessary?  
> > > 
> > > struct _CamelOfflineFolder {
> > >         CamelFolder parent_object;
> > > 
> > >         unsigned int sync_offline:1;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be much better/simpler/cleaner simply to do:
> > > 
> > > struct _CamelOfflineFolder {
> > >         CamelFolder parent_object;
> > > 
> > >         gboolean sync_offline;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > ??
> > >