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

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 10:02 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:43 +0100, Jules Colding wrote:
> > 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;
> > };
> 
> gtypes.h says:
> 
> typedef gint   gboolean;

Sorry, I must be dim-witted here, but I don't understand your answer.
The present definition of CamelOfflineFolder has:

unsigned int sync_offline:1;
                         ^^    <== bit field 

I'm asking why we don't simply do:

gboolean sync_offline;

instead?


-- 
  jules