Re: [g-a-devel] RFC: AtkText simplification (take 2)

[Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>]

On 06/24/2013 01:51 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> >   b) Add the generic boundary now. The enum would be something like:
> >     typedef enum {
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_CHAR,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD_START,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD_END,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE_START,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE_END,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE_START,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE_END
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE,
> >       ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE
> >     } AtkTextBoundary;
> why not define the enum like this
>
>      typedef enum {
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_CHAR,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD_START,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD_END,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE_START,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE_END,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE_START,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE_END
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD = ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_WORD_START,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE = ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_SENTENCE_START,
>        ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE = ATK_TEXT_BOUNDARY_LINE_START
>      } AtkTextBoundary;
>
> Since the start and generic constants have the same meaning I don't see
> a reason they can't have the same value and that way you never need to
> break ABI just source code compatability.

Yes probably it is a good idea to do something like that if possible. In
any case, my main concern was about having two macro enums with the same
meaning (so the need of the aliases). But probably I was being too
clear-code-zealot here.

BR

-- 
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias