Re: GIO API review
- From: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- To: Carlos Garnacho <carlos imendio com>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GIO API review
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:31:42 +0100
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:25 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hi all!,
>
> On mar, 2007-12-11 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> > Hey everybody,
> >
> > We've been doing a GIO API review in the last couple of days and
> > here is the list of comments and issues we've come up with:
> >
>
> I Just wanted to raise another concern I have. Besides defining enums
> containing flags like GFileBlahFlags in gio, values inside these also
> are defined like G_FILE_BLAH_FLAGS_FOOBAR (note the "_FLAGS_" in the
> definition)
>
> I don't think the values should specify too whether they're a flag, as
> the enum is already defined as a set of these, that way it'd also
> conform more to glib and gtk+ style.
There is actually currently some inconsistencies here:
typedef enum {
G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_FLAGS_NONE = 0,
G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_NOFOLLOW_SYMLINKS = (1<<0)
}
vs
typedef enum {
G_FILE_MONITOR_FLAGS_NONE = 0,
G_FILE_MONITOR_FLAGS_MONITOR_MOUNTS = (1<<0)
} GFileMonitorFlags;
What do people think is the best approach here?
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]