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

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 12:08 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 11:51 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > wow, that came out totally wrong...
> > 
> > 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;
> I'm just curious, but what's the advantage of bitfields over just having
> an integer field called "flags" and defining the individual flags as
> enum values?  The latter approach has all the advantages that Jeff
> enumerated, but it also allows you to work with groups of flags at once
> (e.g. masking, copying, etc.).  Perhaps that's not relevant for this
> particular case?

As far as I see it there is no difference/advantage at all. It is just a
matter of personal coding style if you prefer to handle bit fields
instead of bit flags.

I would have preferred a bit flags, but who am I to criticize the style
of another coder if there is no factual advantage of choosing one style
over the other?

Best regards,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]