Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes: >> EOF was -1 and NORMAL was 0 in the previous round; do we need to >> read through all the invocations of functions that return this type >> and make sure there is no "while (such_a_function())" that used to see >> if we read NORMAL that is left un-updated? >> ... >> Will replace. Thanks. > > A reviewer in the previous round found that it was unnecessary to have > EOF start at -1, so per their comments I got rid of that.
Yes, I am aware of that exchange, and after vetting the callers I think it is "unnecessary" for EOF to be negative and NORMAL to be 0 with the current code (iow, any value can be used for these enums as long as they are distinct). But that is different matter. If having negative EOF and/or zero NORMAL helps readability of the resulting code, then even if it is not "necessary" for EOF to be negative, it would still be "better".
