On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:17:47PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > Also, for a single parameter like a comment char, I don't think we need to > go > > creating a separate structure. The current flags parameter is unused, so > > just > > replace it with the comment char one. With using the structure, any > > additions > In my earlier patch, I proprose using a "global" flag to indicate that an > unnamed section exists so the flags argument would still be needed.
Ok, good point, I missed that. > > > to the struct would be an ABI change anyway, so I see little point in using > > it, > > unless we already know of additional parameters we will be adding in future. > We already have 2 parameters in mind - flags, and comment char. I don't feel > that combining the two in a single enum is particularly good since it would > be better to allow the application the freedom to set an arbitrary comment > character and not be locked in to any static list that we choose (see my > previous email response). > I also agree on not using enums and not limiting comment chars. I don't particularly like config structs, and would prefer individual flags and comment char parameters - given it's not a huge list of params, just 2 - but no big deal either way. /Bruce
