Re: GIO API review

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 17:25 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hi all!,
> 
> On mar, 2007-12-11 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> > Hey everybody,
> > 
> > We've been doing a GIO API review in the last couple of days and
> > here is the list of comments and issues we've come up with:
> > 
> 
> I Just wanted to raise another concern I have. Besides defining enums
> containing flags like GFileBlahFlags in gio, values inside these also
> are defined like G_FILE_BLAH_FLAGS_FOOBAR (note the "_FLAGS_" in the
> definition)
> 
> I don't think the values should specify too whether they're a flag, as
> the enum is already defined as a set of these, that way it'd also
> conform more to glib and gtk+ style.

There is actually currently some inconsistencies here:

typedef enum {
  G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_FLAGS_NONE = 0,
  G_FILE_QUERY_INFO_NOFOLLOW_SYMLINKS = (1<<0) 
}

vs

typedef enum  {
  G_FILE_MONITOR_FLAGS_NONE = 0,
  G_FILE_MONITOR_FLAGS_MONITOR_MOUNTS = (1<<0)
} GFileMonitorFlags;

What do people think is the best approach here?