Eric Blake writes:
> On 10/19/2015 11:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> I'm not quite comfortable with reserving 'u' now, becaue I feel we
>> haven't fully explored the design space for avoiding branch - member
>> clashes.
>>
>> I still like the basic idea to give the unnamed union a name. I
On 10/19/2015 11:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> I'm not quite comfortable with reserving 'u' now, becaue I feel we
> haven't fully explored the design space for avoiding branch - member
> clashes.
>
> I still like the basic idea to give the unnamed union a name. It needs
> to be a short one,
Eric Blake writes:
> To make collision detection between member names easier, we
> might as well reject all attempts to use anything that would
> collide with our use of 'has_' as a flag for optional members.
> Also, a later patch will introduce a named union 'u' for
> holding the branch names of
To make collision detection between member names easier, we
might as well reject all attempts to use anything that would
collide with our use of 'has_' as a flag for optional members.
Also, a later patch will introduce a named union 'u' for
holding the branch names of a qapi union in a separate
nam
