On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 10:34 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> Done.
>
> ~M
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Campbell
> <
Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:55 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> > Fair enough - is this something like what you had in mind?
>
>
> Almost. You don't need two bits to encode the boolean
> writeable property
> -- I reckon should just ditch XS_OPEN_READWRITE since its the
> default
> and equivalent to the absence of XS_OPEN_READONLY. The common
> case
> should be to pass flags == 0 and get a read+write connection.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> >
> > ~M
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Ian Campbell
> > <
Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:38 +0000, Mihir Nanavati
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ian Campbell
> > >
> >
> > > For future flexibility should we consider
> passing a
> > flags
> > > argument and defining "XS_OPEN_READONLY
> 1<<0"
> > instead of
> > > having an ro argument?
> > >
> > > Sure, we could do it, but I'm not too sure what
> other modes
> > we could
> > > have for opening, let alone ones that might be
> used
> > simultaneously in
> > > a bit field ;)
> >
> >
> > There's no downside to using a flag field now, even
> if no
> > compelling use
> > cases come to mind right now and it might avoid an
> API change
> > in the
> > future.
> >
> > One vague thought I had was that I recently added a
> > "nonreentrant" flag
> > to libxc for use in language bindings which like to
> control
> > threading
> > themselves. Some sort of "no watches" flag might be
> useful in
> > the future
> > for similar reasons.
> >
> > > I don't suppose you feel like running sed
> over the
> > tree to
> > > convert the
> > > in tree users, do you ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Could do, but I'd rather we get the interface
> finalized
> > first ;)
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > > Is there anything one specially needs to take into
> > consideration when
> > > replacing them in the bindings?
> >
> >
> > I can't think of any -- try it and if it isn't
> obviously
> > broken it's
> > probably fine ;-)
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
