Am Donnerstag, den 13.12.2007, 17:31 +0100 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > > 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? To my knowledge GTK+ would call them: typedef enum { /*< flags >*/ G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_NONE = 0, G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_NOFOLLOW_SYMLINKS = (1<<0) } GFileQueryInfoFlags; and typedef enum { /*< flags >*/ G_FILE_MONITOR_NONE = 0, G_FILE_MONITOR_MONITOR_MOUNTS = (1<<0) } GFileMonitorFlags; A problem is the doublicate "monitor", so the second value should be something like: G_FILE_MONITOR_WATCH_MOUNTS Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <mathias taschenorakel de> http://taschenorakel.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil