I actually don't agree that it's all good, but I also don't have the time to prove it's not (or prove myself wrong, which could certainly be the case).
-- Ian On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 15:21 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > Ian's potential objection has been met by Ben Kaduk and Eric van > Gyzen's responses. It seems like an enum is just fine. And I agree > with Gleb that it is preferable. > > Conrad > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Maxim Sobolev <sobo...@freebsd.org> > wrote: > > > > Well as other pointed out there are some concerns with using enums > > from C++ > > and ABI prospective. So it looks to me that there is no general > > consensus on > > that direction. > > > > -Max > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:40:50AM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > M> That being said, is there any other socket option value in > > > there > > > M> implemented as enum? I don't see anything obvious, so that I > > > am curious > > > if > > > M> it would stick out as an odd one in there. What do you think? > > > > > > Simply because 30 years ago the language didn't allow that, and > > > later > > > additions mimiced the older sockopts. We need to break this loop > > > :) > > > > > > -- > > > Totus tuus, Glebius. > > > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
