On Wed, 09/10 17:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 10/09/2014 17:02, Fam Zheng ha scritto: > > > A bit hackish, but I don't have any better idea. > > > > > > Hmm... what about adding a new member to the visitors for "invalid enum" > > > value? The dealloc visitor could override it to do nothing, while the > > > default could abort or set an error. Would that work? > > > > The invalid state of enum still needs to be saved in the data. It is > > detected > > by the input visitor, but should be checked by other visitors (output, > > dealloc) > > later. > > Yes, that's fine. The only part where I'm not sure is the special > casing of the _MAX enum. >
Yes, it is abusing. Let's add an _INVALID = 0 enum which is much clearer. Fam
