Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2-resend 02/30] libxl: idl: allow KeyedUnion members to be empty

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2-resend 02/30] libxl: idl: allow 
KeyedUnion members to be empty"):
> On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 15:53 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I assume that the problem here is that the compiler rejects the empty
> > struct.
> 
> I don't recall exactly, but I think so.

GCC even permits them as an extension.

> > Is it really necessary to do this with a special-cased new "None" type
> > rather than just fixing the empty structs by putting a dummy member in
> > them ?
> 
> I'd rather a bit of skaniness in the idl compiler than in the end user
> facing eventual API.

You are introducing skankiness not in the IDL compiler, but in the IDL
itself.  I think it is better to have skankiness in some particular
language's output than in the IDL input.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel