On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:41:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/03/2017 13:26, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> You can define an enum type in qapi-schema.json, and use > >> visit_type_<YourEnumType>(). You can grep for > >> visit_type_OnOffAuto to find examples. > >> > >> (But I suggest naming the enum something like > >> "X86CPUFeatureSetting" instead of "OnOffForce", because we will > >> probably add other enum values in the future). > >> > >> However: we need to find a way to do this and not break > >> compatibility with "feat=yes|true|no|false", that's supported by > >> StringInputVisitor (which is used by object_property_parse()). > >> Maybe fallback to visit_type_bool() in case > >> visit_type_<YourEnumType>() fails? > > > > Putting it into a special enum sounds much more fragile than the current > > solution to me. We need to bool fallback either way, so I fail to see > > any benefit from having the enum. > > Using an on/off/force enum sounds like the right thing to do. > > However, I would open code the getters and setters completely (using > visit_type_str) instead of using visit_type_FooEnum+visit_type_bool. > Then you can easily map yes/true to on and no/false to off.
I am wondering if it isn't simpler to define the enum to be (on, off, force, yes, true, no, false), and document (yes, true, no, false) as deprecated. -- Eduardo
