On 07/18/13 16:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/07/2013 15:59, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>> The new modes are equal-rank, exclusive sub-modes of LM_IN_PROGRESS. Teach
>> opts_next_list(), opts_type_int() and opts_type_uint64() to handle them.
>
> Perhaps you could use a bitmap then:
>
> LM_NO
On 07/18/13 18:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Fair enough. But please find a way to put the "sub-mode" thing in the
> code too (that's the redeeming grace of bitmaps)---even better if, at
> the same time, the phrasing will calm the urge to say "bitmap!".
OK. I'll expand the comments on the enum cons
Il 18/07/2013 17:57, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> On 07/18/13 16:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 18/07/2013 15:59, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>>> The new modes are equal-rank, exclusive sub-modes of LM_IN_PROGRESS. Teach
>>> opts_next_list(), opts_type_int() and opts_type_uint64() to handle them.
>>
>>
Il 18/07/2013 15:59, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> The new modes are equal-rank, exclusive sub-modes of LM_IN_PROGRESS. Teach
> opts_next_list(), opts_type_int() and opts_type_uint64() to handle them.
Perhaps you could use a bitmap then:
LM_NONE = 0
LM_STARTED = 1
LM_IN_PROGRESS = 2
The new modes are equal-rank, exclusive sub-modes of LM_IN_PROGRESS. Teach
opts_next_list(), opts_type_int() and opts_type_uint64() to handle them.
Also enumerate explicitly what functions are valid to call in what modes:
- opts_next_list() is valid to call while flattening a range,
- opts_end_lis
