[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gtk-devel
Subject: Re: GIO API review
From: Alexander Larsson <alexl () redhat ! com>
Date: 2007-12-13 16:31:42
Message-ID: 1197563502.17059.3.camel () dhcp-208-188 ! arn ! redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
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?
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic